This is an archive of past discussions about India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
First, thanks Fowler&Fowler for the excellent effort. This page you have created would help immensely to build up the independence movement section in History of India, and also will help organizing the Indian independence movement article. Properly structuring History of India and IIM articles will help summarizing in India article. This approach is really praiseworthy.
Now, regarding the content of the page. We have to remember the content of the page is primarily intended for those two articles (History of India, and IIM), so coverage should include non-mainstream staffs as well. IMO, the "sporadic killing of British official" during Swadeshi movement is sufficient to cover revolutionary movements of early twentieth century. However, this non-mainstream movements need some more sentences later on also (1920s and 1930s).
In addition, movements for Indian independence from outside of India needs a mention. This include, probably among other things, Ghadar party and Indian National Army. Regarding the leaders named, I feel two more may be named, Patel and Bose. Some staffs may be deleted, such as Gokhale's view on Hindu marriage. Otherwise, the page is a nice read, and gives a quite readable gist of the independence movement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a section on Bose; Patel, however, really belongs to post-Independent India, and I'll let someone else work on it. Still mulling over the Ghadar party. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Fowler's efforts are commendable. But I will say that Dwaipayan makes a valid point about noting the extremist movement around 1912-1915, especially Ghadar. The second point is that I dont think Quit India was crushed in six weeks (I may be wrong here, I will check), and the last point is the INA trials and Bombay mutiny.Rueben lys20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bose section you added needs some shortening. For example, I doubt if women's Rani of Jhansi regiment really needs to mentioned in "History of India" article or even the IIM article. And the larger than life sentence, obviously, needs to be deleted. Otherwise, the section reads ok. However, durig integration into "History of India" article, it will need further reduction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now integrated the comments of Dwaipayan and Rueben lys into the text. The reduction of the text for use in different articles can be accomplished later. I'd like to know first if we have an agreement on the content. Fowler&fowler«Talk»06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! it's great. Some queries:
"The overwhelming nationalistic response against the partition of Bengal also led the Muslim elite in India, in 1906, to ask for separate electorates for Muslims..." So the nationalist response led for the demand of separate electorate? I don't know this, that's why it seemed a bit odd.
"...in Bengal, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was comparatively slight. " - Comparatively "less"...would not it be better? (I have no idea about the casualty data though)
I will agree that it is a very good piece of work. But afew points very briefly:
with regards to the INA trial, it says the decision for public trial was taken in 1946, I am quite certain the decision for INA trial was taken in 1945, before the end of the war, while the decision was announced in September (I believe, leading to the formation of the INA defence committee)*
The trials began in November (Not being a nitpicker, but thought I should point this out).
The last thing,with regards to the mutinies, can it be somehow be summaries that the effects of nationalism (INA trials), racism, and rapid growth during the war played a key role in the mutinies by the Indian troops?
Also,the first and major trial preceded the mutnies in chronology and context.
sincere apologies if this seems like nitpicking, but thought I should point these out. But I think Fowler has done a wonderful job here.Rueben lys00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice job F&f! Although it may require a few tweaks here and there for clarity, I think the content and references provide a solid foundation for improvements in the Indian independence movement -> History of India -> India articles. I agree with Dwaipayan below that the logical next steps would be to (1) expand the IIM section in the History of India article and (2) add the references that F&F and Rueben have dug up to current content in the IIM article. How does that sound ? Abecedare02:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to start organizing the Independence movement section in History of India. With Fowler's creation acting as a backbone, this shall not pose a big challenge. i would request Fowler to go ahead and do it. And a request, Fowler, please do not tag the page as Under construction for such a long time as in the case of Partition of India!! Just kidding :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. I am not done yet! :) I'm busy these days, and typically only able to do drive-by edits; so, it will take another day or two before the text reads smoothly and the references are all in place. (I will do that on my sub-page.) Also, I've written the history as a sequence of topics, which I (or others) feel should be touched on. Eventually, transitional sentences etc. will be needed. So, for now, if you have content or clarity issues, i.e. you feel something is needed or not needed, please let me know; likewise, if something is not clear, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I know you are not done yet :) And it is a mammoth task. Still, I showed some urgency. IMO, a whole lot of energy and time are misdirected during the talk page discussions and disagreements. Now that such a constructive effort has come into being, I cannot wait to see the result! Well, many more disagreements may come in our way in future. However, starting the job in itself is effective and rewarding. Also, History of India is due for an FAC in not-so-near future :) Regards. And thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No Mention of The Partition of India
I am shocked to see that there is not one single mention of India's partition which was by all accounts one of the biggest mass movements of people on earth, it was also a very significant historical event that deserves special mention on the India page.
There can be no denying that the republic of India's borders were largely shaped by British colonialists and Muslim nationalists. I do not have to provide sources on the partition of India as this is a well known historical event and many sources are available in many different forms, newspapers, clips, documents, commissions, declarations etc etc.
The fact clearly deserves a mention. I read the country briefings on the website of The Economist, where a one-page history of India is given. The relevant bits about the independence struggle and partition have been mentioned as follows:
“
British rule in India ended in 1947 after a sustained campaign for independence, led by the Indian National Congress (Congress). British India was partitioned, amid great bloodshed, to create Muslim-majority Pakistan and the secular state of India.
”
Also, to add to the discussion that Fowler and Rueben (and others :) had about what all to include in a very concise description of the independence movement, this could come as another example where only the INC is mentioned. I was impressed by the number of sources that you guys managed to bring up in the discussion. --Keynes.john.maynard14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know where you got the idea that no one is talking about the partition. Per above discussion (see two sections up), please see the sub page: Short history of IIM. It is still in the works. Do not edit it, but feel free to leave messages on that page's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Prof F&f, don't get annoyed. That is a great page you are coming up with. Very impressive, indeed. What I meant was no mention of the partition exists on the India page as it stands today. But, I guess the plan is to keep the paragraph about IIM in frozen state till the IIM history page comes up, and a paragraph summary is written for the same. So, the controversial tag doesn't get removed till that is done, right? Keynes.john.maynard16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if I sounded brusque. I wasn't annoyed, just in a hurry. Yes, I suppose that controversial tag will remain, at least as long as Rueben lys wants it. But, hopefully, it won't be long. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Using the word "terrorists"
This is regarding the sub-page that is being created. I understand that it is not final yet but I have to strongly advise against using such terms. Their is a very popular saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." News organizations throughout the world take extreme care at using this word. For instance, Reuters has a policy of not using the word but simply reporting the facts and letting the readers judge. It is strongly pushing your PoV to use such sensitive terms. One can argue almost all revolutions had a terrorist aspect to it. That does not mean we go and label French revolution as French terrorism. The word terrorism is highly ambiguous and has a very uneven history of usage. I hope people stay away from this can of worms and we do not have to waste another five thousand lines of debate. --Blacksun12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the Taj Mahal photo belongs better in the History section than in the Culture section. The main article "History of India" shows the Taj Mahal photo, but the main article "Culture of India" doesn't display it. By 'main article', I mean the articles listed as such in the respective sections of the India page. Comments? -- Thoreaulylazy22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Toda Dairy
The Toda hut is a sacred Toda dairy, which is surrounded on three sides by a low wall and whose door is usually smaller than that of a regular Toda hut. I have provided references (including pictures and quotes) and removed the dubious tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk»06:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason why you reverted my change. I explained in my change that this page about India has british, mughal, and now "toda" architecture and yet has not a single picture of a traditional Indian building? I'm touched at your devotion to the toda people, really, I'm touched, but your efforts are better spent on the page for Todas, and not on a page of India when, apparently, there isn't enough real-estate for a photo of a classical-era Indian building and yet there appears to be ample space for todas who represent 0.0001% of the Indian population? From the Todas page, "The Todas numbered 807 in 1901 and their current population stands at around 1,100" You cannot confer greater attention to this demographic with a population of 1,100 than many, many groups that are much larger than it yet have been omitted from the India page. As previously mentioned in the Talk page, the India article was once over 52KB and people have spent a great deal of effort to bring it down in size. There simply is no meritorious rationale for the todas disproportionate representation on this page -- Thoreaulylazy01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Everything you have said is tired, hackneyed, and repetitive. Please read the talk archives for many near-identical copies of your arguments. What is "traditional Indian" anyway? And what is Ajanta? The work of aliens from outer space? Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the archives and not once have you been able to justify the gross over-representation of this demographic. There are demographics numbering in the hundreds of millions which are absent from the India page for sake of brevity, and you prefer to occupy space to the exclusion of any photos about Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and other minorities whose numbers vastly outweigh Todas? There's no comparison - I've attended weddings with more people than all the Todas on Earth! Perhaps I should put up my wedding photos? As to what traditional Indian architecture is, pick up a book! Next you'll tell me you have no idea what neo-classical or post-modernist is. Any architecture book will clearly outline what you're asking. Toda architecture is not important - no other version of the India page has anything of the sort, be it German, French, or any other language. The English edition of this page is being turning into a shrine for your own biases. You cannot enshrine 1,100 people who are absent from most notable books about India when much, much, much larger demographics are missing for sake of brevity. You yourself once argued in the Talk page against others' posting scholastic idiosyncrasies that lengthened the article to no real benefit to the reader. As I already stated, the Todas have a page, and you can contribute as much as you want, but when there are no photos from Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala, and countless regions with populations numbering in hundreds of millions, I call your position for what it is: biased. -- Thoreaulylazy17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what do you have against the Todas? This page is not a "who's in, who's out" of India... This is an encyclopedia... And if you consider it biased, well it will be, cause we can't have a picture of everything possibly Indian. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That we can't have a picture of everything possibly Indian is precisely my point. As to the "who's in, who's out" comparison, while I would agree if we were talking about a group of 1 million versus a group of 10 million, which are at least close in magnitude to each other, a non-noteworthy architecture used by 1,100 people cannot by any stretch of the imagination demand not just side-by-side treatment but greater treatment than other South Indian architectural form, especially the traditional form as taught in schools and universities in India. I have nothing against the Todas, and I tried to make that clear when I thanked fowler for this devotion to the Toda people, but I feel his efforts regarding them are better spent on the specific Toda page.
Nichalp, people have spoken highly of you in the past so I know I don't stand any chance unless I persuade you. Please, reconsider. I am not deleting the image and replacing it with nothing, I put in its stead a famous Thanjavur temple in South India, erected in the Chola dynasty, which is not a museum or relic but a functional temple to which people pilgrimage even today. I felt assured in my actions since I was replacing a less notable representation of South India with a vastly more notable one. In fact, Nilgiris where the Todas reside is in Tamil Nadu, so I find it startling that there is objection when I put a Thanjavur photo, also from Tamil Nadu, as a much, much more notable representation. I felt I acted in good faith, and it troubled me greatly when fowler not only put the Toda photo back, but explicitly removed the Thanjavur photo, contrary to all textbook notions of notability, and despite the fact that they both try to represent Tamil Nadu. For this reason, I feel he lacks objectivity in this specific case. -- Thoreaulylazy17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
First I need to know why you are defending the Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg so much? Remember, it's not an emotional appeal that will work on wikipedia, but rather the objectiveness of the plea, backed by quality and value of the image. The Toda image has not been placed there only to balance the South Indian region, but also as it is a Featured picture, one of the best wikipedia has to offer. And, don't you think that the images to represent India should be a mixture of different subjects, rather than competing architectural styles? Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=18:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Chola Dynasty temples and Toda Huts are both native to Tamil Nadu. However, the architectural form developed in the Chola Dynasty is famous and that form has become iconic with South India. The Thanjavur temple isn't just "a temple", it's the famous Brihadeeswarar Temple (see Great Living Chola Temples) and a UNESCO heritage site. Google results for "toda hut" sans wikipedia is 189, 24 of which are images [1]. Results for "chola temples" sans wikipedia are 150,000 -- 6,090 of which are images [2]. The Wiki page for Tamil Nadu is rife with mention of the Brihadisvara temple and contains a photo. There is no mention of Todas, Toda hut, nor a photo of them, on the Tamil Nadu page. Isn't it odd that something is not noteworthy at the state level but seems to be at the national India page? Also, that particular Brihadisvara photo I placed on the India page is also the Wikipedia icon for History of Tamil Nadu. The photo was also a candidate for Featured Wiki picture [3] but lost on the technicality that it falls below the 1000 pixel requirement. On the India page, however, the pictures are anyways being scaled down to fit in the article, so 1000 pixels versus 600 pixels cannot overshadow noteworthiness. The World Heritage site gave the following reasons for its inscription[4]:
Criterion (i): The three Chola temples of Southern India represent an outstanding creative achievement in the architectural conception of the pure form of the dravida type of temple.
Criterion (ii): The Brihadisvara Temple at Thanjavur became the first great example of the Chola temples, followed by a development of which the other two properties also bear witness.
Criterion (iii): The three Great Chola Temples are an exceptional and the most outstanding testimony to the development of the architecture of the Chola Empire and the Tamil civilisation in Southern India.
Criterion (iv): The Great Chola temples at Thanjavur, at Gangaikondacholapuram and Darasuram are outstanding examples of the architecture and the representation of the Chola ideology.
[reindenting] Please stick to the point. I have not said anything against the Chola temples. I acknowledge that they are architectural marvels, but we do not work on sentiment (your post above). Your picture is far from featured quality; it is too tightly cropped, has JPEG artefacts, and a bad colour balance. We have to be very choosy here and maintain only the best quality of images. So please show us a higher quality image first. Thanks =Nichalp«Talk»=04:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How is the fact that Toda is never mentioned in the Tamil Nadu page anything to do with sentiment? Neither the name Toda nor a picture of the Toda hut is mentioned in the Tamil Nadu page, yet it is being promoted in the main India page. If something isn't noteworthy at the state-level, I don't see how it can become noteworthy at the national level. Also, there are 2 photos of Ajanta-style on the India page and not a single photo of South Indian style. Is it fair to say that if I find a high-res image of South Indian culture, you will acquiesce? -- Thoreaulylazy04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If you've read the page archives, one of the proposed guidelines is that the picture must be of featured quality (not necessarily hi-res) for consideration. This is to strive for a top quality article replete with appropriate and balanced images. The Toda hut, may I repeat again, is integrally Indian, and endemically South Indian, and simply cannot be wished away as "not being a part of mainstream Indian culture", and thus has every right to be on the page much the same way as a picture of mundane person in New Delhi. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's somewhat reasonable. Not that I fully agree because while I admit you're right on the featured vs. non-featured issue, on a short-term perspective, I feel I'm right on several others, including:
(1) pseudo-proportional representation (I don't quibble about 2x or 0.5x representation, but over-representation by 1e6x seems silly and is unprecendented across any national page - I've checked Greece, United States, China, Italy, Turkey, and many others, as well as the non-English versions of the India page). This is violation of the WP:WEIGHT policy of NPOV.
(2) that it's original research to consider Toda huts folk art and not vernacular architecture (I spent 2 hours reading literature about Toda huts and found nothing so much as hinting that it's art and not vernacular architecture)
(3) The Toda hut does not provide "balance" to the Taj Mahal in any sense. That's like saying we need to balance notability with non-notability. Whatever "balances" the Taj Mahal should be notable, it can't be simply given admission to the main India article because it's a snazzy picture. Moreover, it's a bit moot since I think the Taj Mahal belongs in the History section (see Parthenon in the Greece page)
(4) lack of notability since the state Tamil Nadu page omits even mentioning, in text or graphic, anything related to Todas
(5) the main India page isn't meant to turn readers into PhD holders, and information about Toda hut reads like trivia - I mean, honestly, the construction material of Toda huts is being listed out while there's no mention of the Taj Mahal's material being marble. Not that I want the factoid about marble listed - I consider it trivia, just as I consider factoids about Toda huts trivia suitable to only niche researchers or people who are willing to drill-down further levels.
(6) the leading (english-language) expert in Todas, Anthony R. Walker, notes that while there are approx. 1,000 Todas today, roughly the same size as a hundred years ago, there are only three or four Toda dairies left as most Todas have modernized (1998), and the remaining are expected to do so in 10-20 years (since 1998). It's moot to debate on Toda huts when its style belongs in the History section, if anything. I hope we can all agree that the Culture section shouldn't be about museums and relics but about living culture practiced by a notable number (not necessarily majority). Per this same issue, I would claim the Taj Mahal photo should move to the History section, since the Parthenon in the Greece page is in the History section.
(7) I believe the featured vs. non-featured issue introduces systematic bias over the long-term. The stringent requirements about 1000 pixel resolution as a minimum requirement mean featured photos about India most likely come from tourists with megapixel cameras, and not locals who often only have a cellphone camera. A tourist, paying good money to travel half way around the world, is not likely to take photos of McDonald's in Chennai but rather whatever excites him/her, and this excitement usually comes from the exotic, and I fear a long-term trend toward exotification so long as 5 mega pixel cameras carry higher status over cellphone cameras.
I'm not too worried about #7 because I'm short-sighted like everyone else here, so I'll cede #7. That leaves us with #1, #4, #5 all explaining why the Toda photo doesn't belong on the India page at all, #6 explaining why the Toda photo doesn't belong in the Culture section, and #2 and #3 refuting claims that the Toda hut and the Taj Mahal are somehow offsetting POVs. The Brihadisvara is endemically South Indian, as you would put it, freely-accessible, no fees are charged, no vetting done, anyone is allowed, it is well studied, even gradeschool children are required to know it so it's not deemed trivia, and no one doubts that it'll stay culturally relevant through the next century. You wrote "and endemically South Indian, and simply cannot be wished away as not being a part of mainstream Indian culture, and thus has every right to be on the page much the same way as a picture of mundane person in New Delhi." Which definition of endemic are you using, meaning "prevalent", or meaning "native to a particular place". You surely can't mean prevalent since I gave a reference to an expert who predicts the Toda hut style to be abandoned (not Toda people, just the style). If you mean "native to a particular place", what does being native have to do with inclusion on the main India page? There are 1.2e9 natives, and if you let a Toda photo or the photo of a "mundane person from Delhi", of whom I would equally object, onto the page, what's to stop everyone else and their granny from putting up their photos? I'm perfectly happy having a picture of an Indian slum on there if that's what it'll take to convince anyone that I'm not attempting to saffronize India. But evidence doesn't supports your claim about Toda huts "being a part of mainstream Indian culture". Perhaps, was a part of mainstream Indian culture, if even that. But we are talking about a curiously fringe style near abandonment and that, at its peak, was still much smaller than other equally endemically South Indian styles. Perhaps you're confusing Toda huts with widespread popularity of village huts in India? I would prefer over any photo of dwellings a table from a reputable source that lists the % of Indians that are: homeowners (subtable of assessed value), renters (subtable of payment), and homeless; and perhaps a breakdown of urban v rural as well. Also, I'm not questioning how Indian the Toda style is -- the question never was about "how Indian is X", since the article isn't about Being Indian, it's about India, and hence should be "the most valuable information about India that fits in 52KB for diverse readers with only a baseline general education", and the debate should stick to informational value and not Indianness. -- Thoreaulylazy19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Quotes from others:
"The tiger image was inserted because someone had said its better to show people what you mean rather than discussing it. (And that statement got a lot of support(its in the section where universe=atom got mad cuz fowler kept reverting his edits or something). The Toda image has no significane to the section, there should not even be a discussion about it (which there is). Its very ridiculous that the image is still there, its in clear violation of relevancy. Same with the Apatani image. If the Apatani people get their image put on Wiki, what about Kashmiri people? Marathi people? UP people? Tamil nadu people? They deserve to have their image on the site as well. Why are the apatanis favored? it really is ridiculious. Nikkul 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_3)
I'm not sure who you are addressing, but its a waste replying to the same nature of comments over again. Please read the rationale behind the image inclusion and then debate on those grounds. Thanks =Nichalp«Talk»=17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It was more so background for passerby who also question the noteworthiness of the Toda photo. I couldn't expect passerby to dredge up archives, so I thought it would be convenient to quote from others whose names and comments are archived. I'm still puzzled by the rationale behind the image inclusion; the only thing I could find from the archived Talk pages was that the India page lacked photos from the South, yet this seems to no longer be the rationale if the Chola dynasty temple in Tamil Nadu is being reverted to the Toda hut. -- Thoreaulylazy17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Because traditional Indian architecture is formally studied at universities, just as classical Indian music is. If you can explain why Blues isn't classical music, I can explain why the Toda hut doesn't follow the style. If you're truly interested, then as I earlier suggested, you can buy a book, there are plenty of resources on traditional Indian architecture.[5] None of them mention Toda hut form. I hope you understand that architecture, like music, is a formally studied discipline and everything gets classified. You're most likely misinterpreting what I said to mean Toda style is not Indian or isn't architecture, which I surely would never say. I'm not implying that Toda huts carry no architectural value or form, quite to the contrary, they're remarkable, and they are indeed Indian. I'm merely stating the fact that it employs a fringe style that you're grossly over-representing to the detriment of styles that are hundreds of degrees in magnitude more notable yet are presently lacking representation, namely the traditional Indian architectural style which is presently the grossest omission. It's not just about architecture, but the Thanjuvur temple invokes many aspects of the Chola dynasty itself, including piety and Hinduism, which were crucial to India's past and play a very large role even today. This shouldn't be misinterpreted as saying the Chola Temples are icons of Hinduism, just the same way the Taj Mahal isn't an icon of Islam, irrespective of the religions that inspired them, they are both considered integral Indian emblems. -- Thoreaulylazy20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Amazing. Let me repeat again. I never said anything about architecture; it is you who keeps expounding on it. It is the Culture section we are talking about. Architecture is one of many Arts, which in turn are some of many products of Culture. The Arts alone include literature, music, dance, theatre, architecture, sculpture, painting and the decorative arts. The Toda Hut image is included in the Culture section as an example of Folk Art (like a Mithila painting), not as an example of Indian architecture, although, to be sure, the Todas must bring to bear some knowledge of architecture in its construction. (It is you who is setting up that straw man, just as others before you had set the hut up as an example of "housing" in India, and then objected on the grounds that 99.999% of Indians don't live in Toda-like huts.) The Toda hut therefore serves as both a counterpoint and a counterpoise to the High Art of the Taj. Culture is about both traditions, the folk and the haute.
As for my asking you to clarify what you meant by traditional, I wasn't looking for a disquisition, but rather trying to get you to cough up the word "Hindu," which you seem to have done (amid much qualification) in your last post. The Ajanta, BTW, is an example of traditional Indian art, although its murals, being illustrations of the Jatakas, are nominally Buddhist. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have never called the Toda hut a housing or said 99.999% do not live in it. I would say 100% do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there. I only said it is a fringe style which 99.9999% of Indians do not employ (note the extra 9). What does Ajanta have to do with native Tamilian art or culture? I wonder how much about South India you really know because when I go over your edit history, you haven't made a single contribution to anything related to South India except this Toda hut insert to the India article. I don't want to turn this into an ad hominem, but what are your reasons for including Toda hut in the India article while not mentioning them at all in the Tamil Nadu page? I fear you're turning the India article into a trivia game by bombarding readers with information which almost no Tamilian is familiar with. It's a pretty picture, yes, but it is still trivia. There are far better examples of South Indian culture like Carnatic music, or the reams of culture produced by the Chola dynasty. Also, I don't see how you can reason the Toda hut has nothing to do with architecture. Even the Indian vernacular architecture page considers it vernacular architecture. Neither the Indian art page nor the Arts and entertainment in India page make any mention of Todas, so you cannot earnestly say the Toda hut is example of folk art and not architecture. If you're looking for a photo of folk art, I suggest you use one from Indian art or Arts and entertainment in India -- Thoreaulylazy05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't decide if you are feigning utter lack of comprehension or simply trolling (by continuously changing the terms of this exchange). Remember, you were last talking about "piety and Hinduism?". Now, unburdened of pieties yourself when it comes to poking fun at other religions, you are quick to find lame humor in the Todas' sacral life.
As for our last discussion, please read my post above again. Carefully. Where did I mention "Tamil?" Where did I say "the Toda hut has nothing to do with architecture?" The decorative art displayed on a Toda hut is a legitimate example of Folk Art, the hut's vernacular architecture notwithstanding. The latter only adds to the cultural counterpoint the Toda Hut provides to the Taj. I am sure the Toda Hut's example can be added to the Folk and Tribal Art section of the Indian art page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk»08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The "terms" of this exchange? You mean where I have to listen to you berate me and accuse me without any evidence whatsoever of ridiculing other religions or where you're accusing me of being a Hindu zealot, when I'm not even Hindu? Show me one sentence I've written which ridiculed any religion. Where are your sources that the Toda hut is a legitimate example of folk art? Not a single piece of literature associates Toda hut with folk art or Ajanta. All literature on the topic considers it vernacular architecture which is being abandoned. If you're referring to only the decorative art on the Toda hut, why is noteworthy? Is there a name for it? References? Also, you can't simply skip past state-level notability and claim it has national notability. As much as you may want to close you ears, Nilgiris is in Tamil Nadu. If Toda huts are not notable in their own home state, why the sudden promotion to the national page? -- Thoreaulylazy21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with Putting a Picture of a Hindu temple... more than 800 MILLION people in India are hindu. It would be nonsensicle to put a picture representing .0001 % of a population when u can put a picture representing 80% of the population. There is no way u can argue that a toda hut is more representative of india that a hindu temple. And by the way, most of the Toda people live in Modern homes as someone had said earlier. Nikkul18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. As usual your lugubrious posts defy rational thought and logic. Making this out to be a religious issue is very shallow. I thought you would learn something being here for so many months, but alas. The Toda hut does not have to representative of 100% India's culture. There is nothing that can be termed as culturally "Indian" in the holistic sense. =Nichalp«Talk»=18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nichalp, I think Nikkul was trying to suggest WP:WEIGHT is not being adhered to. It's not about religion, it's about prevalence and familiarity. I don't need to participate in Christmas to be aware of it. I'm familiar that such a celebration exists, and I'm familiar with various aspects of it, and familiarity or awareness about a topic has nothing to do with religion. I'm sure not just most, but nearly 99.99% of Indians are not even aware of Todas or their style. That's where WP:WEIGHT comes into play. -- Thoreaulylazy04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it clearly applies to photos. WP:WEIGHT (which is an alias for WP:UNDUE) states: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." -- Thoreaulylazy18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that applies to viewpoings, theories, and opinions. I cannnot fathom how a picture of a Toda hut is an opinion, viewpoint or theory. =Nichalp«Talk»=08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Not just a Hindu temple, but Brihadisvara, the first of the three Great Chola temples, and an architectural style that has been emulated and studied throughout the world. For a degree in Indian studies from UCLA, Indian Architecture is a requirement, here's the Indian Architecture page from UCLA: [6]. Also note the choice of image the University selected.[7] I sincerely believe we can look to ucla.edu as an upholder of NPOV and use its pages as a means to resolve this dispute. -- Thoreaulylazy22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You start out by being condescending: "I'm touched at your devotion to the toda people, really, I'm touched, but ..." You next attempt lame humor, poking fun at the Toda people's sacred rites, in, "I have never called the Toda hut a housing or said 99.999% do not live in it. I would say 100% do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there." There is of course a small chance that you were not attempting humor there—given the many aberrations of grammar and diction in those two sentences ("a housing," "live in it," "100% do not live in it,"); in that case, please accept my apologies. However, frankly, you cannot call a priest (or a dairyman-priest) a "holy milkman" (without attribution to Frazer's Golden Bough, or without providing a link (e.g.Todas#Religion)) and then expect comprehension whose empathy stretches beyond the limits of idiomatic speech. Frazer's book, moreover, is dated. Here is an example from that same paragraph on the Todas: "Further, the holy milkman never cuts his hair or pares his nails so long as he holds office; he never crosses a river by a bridge, but wades through a ford and only certain fords; if a death occurs in his clan, he may not attend any of the funeral ceremonies, unless he first resigns his office and descends from the exalted rank of milkman to that of a mere common mortal. Indeed it appears that in old days he had to resign the seals, or rather the pails, of office whenever any member of his clan departed this life." (Italics mine.) That is certainly not the neutral language of modern anthropology or language that would be allowed on Wikipedia (other than in a quote). Frazer is clearly making a lame joke at the expense of the Todas, how do we know that you are not? Assuming you are using "holy milkman" as another neutral synonym for a priest, it still doesn't explain why you would add, "I would say 100% (of Indians) do not live in it because it's a dairy and apart from the holy milkman, no one resides there." (parenthetical explanation mine). What useful information are you supplying there? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, but your poor diction, careless use of language, and lack of attribution doesn't give me much confidence. If you think I am being needlessly harsh, please post those two sentences on the talk page of WP:MOS and ask them to weigh in.
Anyway, this is as far as I go. The bottom line for me is that I see this becoming an endless non-exchange, and I will not pursue this beyond this point on this page. However, if you ask for formal mediation, I will respond. Be aware though that the logic of why and how images are added to country pages is not one of percentages alone: of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:
Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakwtotem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC. Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language. The other image is of a Mountie ...)
Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
PS After looking at a number of Wikipedia country and geography pages, I feel even more strongly that the Todas picture belongs to the Culture section. The Todas—whose society and culture were studied by William H. R. Rivers (The Todas, 1906), one of the founders of Social Anthropology, just as the society and culture of the Andaman Islanders were studied by another founder, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown—clearly cannot be judged by numbers alone. I think it would be more meaningful to say that the image of the Today dairy, represents the "Culture of the Todas," which is a part of the "Culture of India," rather than to say that the image represents an aspect of some tangible aspect of culture like Art, Science, Engineering, etc. There is obviously an increasing awareness of these issues around the world, given UNESCO's list of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. See also the Wikipedia page, Intangible culture, as well as something I myself wrote not too long ago: Oral Mathematical Tradition. Clearly, culture, whether it is a Toda dairy and its intangible meanings, or the oral transmission of a Vedic text, is a "many splendored thing," not reducible in the end to a calculus of percentages. If you would still like to push the percentages though, I am happy to request a formal mediation. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with folk culture being a part of the culture section and have never argued against the inclusion of folk culture. I'm not debating for high culture and against low culture; rather, I'm debating for healthy culture and against abandoned culture. "Healthy culture" means that if one is asked "will this be around in 10 years?" the answer should invariably be "yes" otherwise it's an abandoned culture, not to be confused with a fad because a fad implies it both began recently and will end soon. I'm not claiming the Toda hut style is a fad, because it has clearly lasted since times immemorial, and I'm not claiming the Toda people are dwindling in numbers - their population is steady. I'm citing Anthony R. Walker who is the leading expert on living Todas, as opposed to Rivers' early 1900s study. The style of the Toda hut is being abandoned, by Todas themselves. There are only 3 munds (hamlets) left that even have one, out of 56 munds. The Lahore kite festival is an example of healthy culture, since there are few who doubt it will survive ten years. It also is a familiar event appearing in local news and I would wager at least 1% are aware of it (they needn't participate). I'm not one to trifle, so if 1% of a large population is at least aware of something, and it's an example of healthy culture, then I'm fine with its inclusion in the Culture section. All the examples you gave justify folk culture inclusion in the culture section, which I was never against, and none of the examples you gave justify fringe styles (fewer than 0.5% of locals are familiar with it) and abandoned styles being included in the culture section. I'm perfectly fine with photos displaying folk cultural style as long as it meets regional familiarity (by some significant minority of locals, e.g. 0.5%) and contemporary relevance (i.e. isn't abandoned, because it belongs in the History section if it is). -- Thoreaulylazy15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the face that some guy studied the todas should influence their representation under demographics of India. Millions of individuals have studied Indians of all sorts. Who is going to decide which studied group will get their image on Wikipedia?
Images should represent the topic. The Toda Hut represents a very very very very very small part of India (.0001%). Hence, the Toda Hut image does not represent the 99.9999% of India and is directly a violation of relevance & WP:WEIGHT.Nikkul19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
To Thoreaulylazy. Unfortunately, the information you have (for Walker's book) is already dated. There have been many new developments both in the Nilgiris (in general) and in the Toda areas (in particular). During the last decade more than 40 new "traditional houses" have been built and scores of Toda temples as well. I have created a sub-page, User:Fowler&fowler/The Toda, detailing some of these, and I will be on the look out for more. The bottom line: I don't see that the Todas are on their way to becoming an "abandoned culture." Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the temple article is in dire need of text. By the way, your "High Art" links to a movie. I should add that I used "high" or "haute" mainly for emphasis to distinguish it from "folk art." The usual term for "High Art" is just "Art" or the "Fine Arts." I agree that the distinction between "Folk Art" and the "Fine Arts" is tricky; for example, some traditions of art can belong to both categories Despite the lack of a complete formal definition, both Britannica and Encarta, have long articles on Folk Art. Here are two excerpts from them. The Wikipedia article on "Folk Art" is poorly written, and still incomplete, so I agree that it wouldn't be the best thing to refer a reader to.
Expand to see the excerpts on "Folk Art" from Encarta and Britannica:
Encarta (Folk Art):
“
The Western world has long distinguished between the highly structured teachings of the academies that produce the fine arts and the orally transmitted traditional arts, created by and for the artistically less sophisticated. In the conservative view held by many folklorists, for a work to qualify as folk art it must be part of a long-standing tradition, must be learned from an active practitioner, and its genre, style, and technique should be those of an isolated culture, such as that of the Amish or whalers.
In the United States and Canada the concept of folk art is far less restrictive. In the normal usage of museums, dealers, collectors, and the general public the key word is nonacademic—art that has developed outside, but not necessarily uninfluenced by, the arts taught in art schools. In fine art the idiosyncratic generally is admired, whereas anonymity of style is characteristic of folk art, in that it expresses an aesthetic for a specific group that includes the artist and the artist’s immediate audience.
”
Britannica (Folk Art):
“
Although the definition of folk art is not yet firm, it may be considered as the art created among groups that exist within the framework of a developed society but, for geographic or cultural reasons, are largely separated from the cosmopolitan artistic developments of their time and that produce distinctive styles and objects for local needs and tastes. The output of such art represents a unique complex of primitive impulses and traditional practices subjected both to sophisticated influences and to highly local developments; aside from aesthetic considerations, the study of folk art is particularly revealing in regard to the relationship between art and culture.
The Todas are just one of thousands of tribes in India with populations under 5000. Who is going to decide which tribe gets their image on Wikipedia? Is it going to be Fowler or Nichalp? Are there not Kashmiri people and Marathi People, and Tamils and Kerlaites and Assamese ppl and many more whose populations are in the millions? What about them? One of the only things Indian demographics has in common is Hinduism. A temple or a Diwali photo will def. make sense and fit well because it is acutally mentioned in the culture section. Housing is not mentioned in the culture section!
One example is this: Muslims make up 3% of France. Does that mean you will see a Muslim building in France as part of the French Demographics section? No Way. Because 97% of French people are not muslim. The stats are much more severe in India. Only .0001% of India is Todas. The rest are not. Stop dragging this discussion out. You can not favor one tribe who is soooo small and put their image on Wiki when theyre not even worth mentioning in the sectionNikkul00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me Nichalp. I dont think you have any right to choose which one tribe gets their image on Wikipedia. Sorry. You cant authorize the inclusion of the Apatani image or the Toda image where it clearly doesnt belong. Tribes do not represent the culture of India. Get over it. Nikkul05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have never claimed so. Please prove me wrong. I support the inclusion of featured images -- images that have been certified by the community as being one of the best. Please do not add random musings here. =Nichalp«Talk»=08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Gizza, as far as I can see, Nikkul has no where written that Toda image represents .0001% of Todas. He is saying, "Only .0001% of India is Todas". Also, how much % of total Indian population will be equivalent to 8.3% of the tribal population? - KNMTalk02:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a photo of a toda hut in the Culture section of the article on India (where there is no mention of huts, todas, dairies, or buildings) is pretty bizarre. Look at the variety of photos in the Culture sections of the France and England articles for comparison. The four photos in the England article's Culture section are: St. Paul's Cathedral, Shakespeare, a painting of Salisbury Cathedral, and a statue of a well-known composer. One comes across the strangest dissonances on Wikipedia, don't they.... Comparable photos here would be the Taj Mahal (which is in the article), Rabindranath Tagore, any of the amazing ancient Indian temples, and a beautiful Chola bronze or a colorful silk painting. But a toda hut? In the Culture section? LOL...... Methinks someone is playing a joke. ॐ Priyanathtalk01:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I thank you for my mirth (this isn't the first time I've laughed over the incongruity of a toda hut there). The four photos I mention would be a much better representation of Indian Culture than a toda hut, thanks, but then I'd have to go elsewhere for my daily chuckle. ॐ Priyanathtalk01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Still discussing the "Toda Hut"? Hasn't this been going on since March? Why not replace it with a non-building that involves Indian culture? Or maybe a temple, since temples are centers of culture? Maybe a picture of a festival? Surely we have good pictures of these things. The Behnam02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've replaced the toda hut with an image of Rabindranath Tagore, arguably India's most beloved poet, 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature, and actually mentioned in the Culture section. I also pointed out in my edit summary that the only other image in this section is already another building. How about a person instead? A poet? Culture? Please, toda hut fans, look at it before reverting and see if it doesn't make more sense. ॐ Priyanathtalk03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone on another milestone achieved! We are improving every day... er.. every six months. Way to go!! Keep it up. The sight of yet another of those collapsable boxes had me shuddering.. thanks Priyanath, your action was timely. Oh.. and just for the record, I also think that the Toda hut on this page was a joke. Good riddance. Sarvagnya05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Priyanath, We are all aware of the injunction to be bold; however, please be aware too that there is a discussion going on here. Many editors, like Thoreaulylazy, have even spent many hours in the library trying to add to the discussion. Why would they be doing that, you think? In order that you can make one of your drive-by edits? And, please don't throw the book at me, I know the stuff about "anyone can contribute." Again: there is a discussion going on here, part of the usual Wikipedia sequence of dispute resolution. I have already suggested to Thoreaulylazy that we go in for formal mediation. If you would like to do this instead, I am happy to file a Request for mediation, with you and me as the respondents. Since Sarvagnya appears supportive of your goals, if he would like to join you, I am happy to include him as well. Please let me know. The bottom line is that if you choose to ignore the long-standing discussion, and the usual Wikipedia approach to dispute resolution, and edit-war over this, I will take this to WP:ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, now I'm laughing again. Can you, or anyone here, say with a straight face "The toda hut is an iconic symbol of India's national Culture that is more relevant than India's Poet Laureate Rabindranath Tagore." Go stand in front of a mirror and try saying that sentence. And there are many other images that say "Indian Culture" more than toda huts. I would be more than happy to go into formal mediation over "which images are the most iconic for India's national Culture, and should be included in the article's 'Culture' section?" if that can't be decided here. Note that the issue isn't your toda hut references, or the reality of toda huts, but whether other images are far more relevant and meaningful to this article. If this is the discussion for mediation, I am more than willing to go through that door. P.S. I've been watching this for many months, and have not edited in the past because you seem to WP:OWN that image's placement, so that was no drive-by edit. ॐ Priyanathtalk14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The point is not if the Toda hut is an icon of India's culture. There is no national culture of India, even the biggest festival, Diwali is not celebrated with the same gusto in many parts of India. The point here is if the image is appropriate in the section. As tribal cuture is one of the facets of Indian culture, I don't see why it should be so vehemently opposed. =Nichalp«Talk»=08:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Why don't we let them (the Mediation Committee) decide what the issue is. The "Toda hut" image has been here for almost a year. You want to replace it. You provide your reasons for why it doesn't belong, and I'll provide mine for why it does. Complicating the issue with a hybrid word like "iconic symbol," when you mean icon, is not going to help. If I don't hear from you by the same time tomorrow, I will go ahead an file a request for mediation, with you two of us as respondents. You are welcome to add anyone else on your side, provided we have their consent. In the mean time, I would request you to replace the original Toda image (with its accompanying caption). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The proper forum for this discussion is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, rather than mediation, because several editors have an opinion about this issue. This isn't just between two editors, so I couldn't accept mediation just between you and me. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, "# Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes." It will also allow for a broader discussion of what are the appropriate images to use for the Culture section of the India article. That, I believe, is the underlying issue. Even though this could take quite some time and work by many editors, I think it's a good idea to decide this once and for all. I believe that the images used for the Culture section do stand as icons, or symbols, (I promise not to use the hybrid version :-) ) representing India's Cultural Heritage. India has such an extremely rich cultural heritage, (in which toda huts are not particularly notable) and that heritage should be accurately and encyclopedicly represented in this article. For that reason, I think this is an important discussion. ॐ Priyanathtalk16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Yes, I am well aware of RfCs, having been through a few during the last few months. I suggested the Request for Mediation, because the last two RfCs didn't lead anywhere and the mediation committee members themselves suggested in my last dispute with Rueben lys to go directly for formal mediation. If you want to do an RfC that is fine, but you need to reinstate the Toda image. Many discussion have been conducted on this page without resorting to unilateral removal of an image (especially a Featured Picture); the last such discussion began a week ago, and one editor in particular, user Thoreaulylazy, spent a considerable amount of time researching the issues, but without resorting to such unilateral removal. However, you, without any history of discussing this topic and with scant history of contributing to the India page, come along, and off goes the picture. You were being disingenuous, by the way, when you gave "my ownership of this page," as an excuse for not contributing earlier. You started editing editing Wikipedia long before I appeared on it, had already completed around 900 edits around the time I made my first edit, had made another 1000 edits (making a total of almost 2000) before I took a stand on any issue, which would have allowed you to even notice my presence, let alone confer allegations of "ownership" on me. Of these 2,000 edits you made, edits whose choice of page you can't lay at my doorstep, there is not a single edit made on the India page. The same holds, BTW, for user:Behnam and user:Sarvagnya, both of whose actual edits on the India page are few; their ratios of edits on the India page to edits on the Talk:India page are abysmally low. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for anything further. We've got WP:UNDUE, which BTW applies to pictures - "This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Considering the demonstrated minority of Toda architecture in India, and also its lack of historical significance, it is definitely undue weight to represent India's culture with Toda huts. Also, of key importance is WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, where pictures are required to "be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." I'm not sure how it has been demonstrated as relevant to India's wider culture (instead of just "Toda culture"), but on the matter of notability the Toda hut has yet to be noted as representative of India's culture, so we oughtn't represent India's culture with it. The Behnam16:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is for a dispute. You throwing a tantrum because you dont like something is not a dispute. Go ahead, file whatever you want and argue with yourself. And oh, btw, do you have anything other than "counterpoise and counterpoint" in support of the Toda picture? Sarvagnya19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please add my name to those opposing the Toda Hut image as a representation of summerized Indian culture. I do not know much about how this works but I will be more than happy to do anything required to make the India article better and more accurate. Just let me know.
By the way, this doesnt seem like a dispute. Its more like 2 editors favoring an image against like 6 editors who oppose it. Nikkul21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound like "Consensus", "common sense", plus Wikipedia policy — WP:UNDUE and WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" — which makes it seem there is no longer a dispute. As people are pointing out, this isn't just about the toda hut image, but its relevance to this article and its Culture section, and the far greater relevance of images like Rabindranath Tagore, any of a dozen fine ancient Indian temples, statues, paintings, and more. Culture, in other words. ॐ Priyanathtalk22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This subsection is about the request for mediation. If I don't hear explicitly from you to the contrary, I shall be filing a request in less than 12 hours, listing you and I as the co-respondents. You will then be welcome to try out your arguments about "consensus" and "common sense" with them.
In addition, for the second time, I request you to reinstate the Toda hut image, a featured picture that has been a part of this page for over a year, and wait for the dispute resolution process to end first. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The Toda hut image will not be restored - as a featured article, this article is improved by its removal. There isn't sufficient support for it, both in terms of arguments and plain numbers. Instead of focusing upon its somewhat irrelevant "featured picture" status, perhaps you should focus upon our arguments which derive from WP:IMAGE's emphasis upon relevance and notability and WP:WEIGHT's recommendation that undue weight not be placed on such content. The Behnam23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
We can use these images which are much more relevant...as shown above
Nichalp, if there were room for 150 images, then a hut might be relevant. The fact that there are so many much more relevant images makes it irrelevant to this article. It is also irrelevant to the Culture section of the article. Images of Tagore, grand Indian temples, art, sculpture, all are extremely relevant to Indian's Culture. I understand all of the other arguments, some of which are at least arguable. But on this basis, relevance compared to other available images for the culture section, it is truly a joke. Consensus on this page also is leaning strongly toward keeping the Tagore image, rather than replacing it with a hut (which is shameful, I think). I will limit myself to one revert per day.ॐ Priyanathtalk15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, the point remains that choosing an image is always going to be subjective. A tribal hut cannot be called as irrelavent in the culture section. The tribal hut can be viewed as a facet of Indian architecture, or a showcase on tribal dwelling in India. It cannot be termed as irrelavent. There is undisputed relevence to culture, defined as: "he beliefs, values, behavior and material objects that constitute a people's way of life.". Tagore may be India's most famous pre independendence-era poet, but his photo is not a direct function of culture. It is a second degree of separation. =Nichalp«Talk»=17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Toda and Culture
I should like to remind people that two weeks ago, doubts were being expressed, for example by user:Sarvagnya, about the authenticity of the Toda image, whether it really was even that of a hut, since its door was deemed by the doubters to be too small for any adult human to enter. After I provided references testifying to the smallness of the Toda doors in general, and the sacred dairy doors in particular, that line of questioning died down. However, soon the refrain changed to one of wonderment about why architectural features were being mentioned in the Toda caption, when none were mentioned in the the Taj Mahal caption. Well, guess why?! I am therefore changing the Toda image caption to one that addresses their contribution not only to the culture of India, and the culture of the world, but culture in its most general anthropological sense, i.e. "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." The Todas, along with the Andamanese, were two of the foundational cultures of the field of Social Anthropology, through the works of two of its founders W. H. R. Rivers and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. In addition, the Toda's preeminent art form, extempore song, was important in the creation of the new field of Ethnomusicology in the 1980s. Before you rush to throw that Wikipedia rule book at me and accuse me of POV, OR, etc. etc., be aware that all this is well documented, in the caption itself and I will be adding more references to the Toda people page. In addition, during the last decade, the Toda have become the center of an effort at culturally sensitive environmental restoration. I have provided references for that on my subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/The Toda. I would also like to remind the new generation of critics who are now quoting UNDUE WEIGHT etc. (and I don't mean user Thoreaulylazy, whose acumen I rather enjoyed) that 11 of the 15 country Feature Articles on Wikipedia, take an approach of combining "High Culture" and "Folk Culture" as the combination of the "Taj" and "Toda" images does. (Only 3 or 4 of the country FAs take an approach like that of United Kingdom: Culture being touted by user:Priyanath.) Perhaps you would like to throw the rule book at them too. Here, by the way, in collapsible box format, is the list of those country pages:
Expand to see culture in 11 of the 15 country FAs:
of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:
Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakwtotem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC. Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language. The other image is of a Mountie ...)
Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
Thanks, Fowler, but the Undue Weight has to do with a comparison to other much more relevant images that express truly relevant images of India's great Culture. See my comments above. ॐ Priyanathtalk15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If you recall, we had talked about both copy-editing and sourcing some sections of the India page. Quickly skimming through the page, it seems, that the following sections need some work:
Would someone like to take a stab at one of these tasks? (I am unfortunately swamped right now with the history stuff.) In my opinion, the copy-editing is more important than the sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, this is (already) a discussion going on here, which clearly says, that the geography section needs sourcing etc. We are all aware of the problems. Please add your comments here instead of adding the unsightly templates everywhere all at once. Earlier, Rueben lys had added a similar template to the history section. After many editors, for example, Sundar, Doldrums, Abecedare objected to it, he voluntarily removed the template. I would urge you to do the same. Moreover, please not that I have volunteered to source the Geography and Culture sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There are "already" discussions going on on the India talk page at any given point of time. Thanks but no thanks. Improve the articles and lose the template. The templates are there to serve a specific purpose and they're serving very well atm on this article. If they seem "unsightly" to you, too bad.. just get used to it coz.. this article hasnt gone anywhere in the last one year and I dont see this India article going anywhere in the near future. Sarvagnya10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been adding some refs to the Culture section, and was wondering if editors here feel that we need to add references for (what I consider) indisputable statements, such as "India's national sport is field hockey, even though cricket is the most popular sport." ?
Perhaps, it would help if someone went through the Culture section and added {{cn}} tags where they think citations are needed; instead of simply tagging the whole section. That will help me and others focus attention on "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and it will also be clear when the section is sufficiently referenced. I know that this will "deface" a FA article, but that should not last more than a week or so and will eventually result in an improved article. Of course, any help in adding quality references to this and other sections is appreciated. Cheers. Abecedare22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh... I see that a section is entirely unsourced and tag it and you say I need to add {fact}} tags to it. You add {fact}} tags and you get called for defacement/disruption (check out the Chennai article where I added fact tags only because Dwaipayanc asked for them(just like you're asking now) only for another guy to latch on to it and troll that I am disrupting by adding those tags! Sorry.. I wouldnt even bother asking for the article to be referenced if the child articles were solid. At the moment, all child articles are pathetic... and this article, if is a summary of those articles (that is what's been claimed many times over), then this article is pathetic too. Sorry to burst some people's bubble, but the India article is one of the worst and most useless FAs on wikipedia. It gives no more info than a tourist brochure and useless even as a starting point for any kind of research. Sarvagnya23:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, to be clear I didn't say that you (or anyone else) need to fact-tag it, just that it would be helpful to me, if someone did so - so that I could judge what level of referencing is thought to be desirable. It was a request, not a challenge or demand.
I'm afraid that all the recent contentious debates on the talk page have polarized the editors - IMO the current article is neither perfect, nor pathetic and it would be useful if we could work collaboratively in overcoming its deficiencies. Regards. Abecedare00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, perhaps a way out would be to fact tag the section and then self-revert. I can then take a look at the "tagged" version in the article history and use it as a guide when adding references. Of course, I know that you (like all of us) are a volunteer here and if you don't think this to be worth your time and effort I have no complaints. Cheers. Abecedare00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare. Good job with the references! The problem with the culture section, as I see it, is not just one of references. For, example there are sentences like, "Indian music is highly diversified," which, beyond its purpose of introducing the parent article, don't really say anything meaningful. I mean I could make the statement about any music from any country. What I will do (when I find some time this weekend) is to annotate the culture section with comments, and leave it as a subpage on my userpage. You can then use it for your referencing or copy-editing, if you'd like. In fact come to think of it, I can start it now, and will keep adding comments. Will add a PS here once I have created the page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC).
I share your observation; for example the cuisine paragraph has a sentence, "country is notable for its wide variety of vegetarian and non-vegetarian cuisines." Well, duh ! A better point to make would be regarding cooking style (using open flames/ chula) or common utensils (tava, kadhai) etc. Most of the paragraphs have the generic form, "Indian X is very varied. Examples include A, B, C, ...", which well may be true and provides useful links, but is not very interesting/informative for the reader.
I am trying to add references which are authoritative sources on the subject of the sentence/paragraph and not just simple google search results for the narrow claim. So I would expect that they should be usable even if the exact content of the sentences is changed - in fact, they should serve as a useful basis for writing more meaningful content. It may be useful to work this out on a subpage, as you say. Cheers. Abecedare01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I've create the page User:Fowler&fowler/Comments on the India page Culture section, with one commment, which merely echoes what you say above. I probably won't anything substantial until well into tomorrow. Yes, the authoritative sources are a very good idea. I think the days of "first generation" Wikipedia articles, in whose composition people pulled off the first hit they found on Google, are long gone. I could probably add some references too on the subpage (preceded by some goofy symbol, so they they are not confused with the real references). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, It occurred to me that Wikipedia itself defines Culture quite broadly. In addition, the India page (culture) section talks about multiculturalism. Shouldn't it then say something about India's rich folk and tribal culture? It seems to me that the only acknowledgment is a general statement about vernacular architecture and half a sentence about folk music. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare and Priyanath, Assuming that in the end there will be a 20% expansion of the culture section as well, I have posted my comments here. I have added four new references and have three of them with me should you need quotes or page numbers. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Priyanath, I think it is better to make qualitative statements that tell a reader what the Apu Trilogy is about ("childhood, youth and manhood in Bengal") than fill up space with list of awards and honors. You can't have the kind of turgid prose you've written. It reads like a lab report. Sorry, but prose is important, in this article. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fowler, I agree that your description of Apu was excellent, I will add it back if you don't beat me to it. But both are important - tell the reader what it's about, and why it's both relevant and notable (something that's, um, missing in this section). Cheers, ॐ Priyanathtalk04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
At least 1-2 sections should have subsections, if not all (like Brazil). Currently article makes me frown when i look at the contents table. Thanks. Lara_bran03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A compact toc makes the article much neater. Besides featured articles are wikipedia's best, on showcase. GA are not, and should never be used a comparison metric. =Nichalp«Talk»=03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed horribly Photoshopped images
I have removed two of Nikkul's horribly photoshopped images. They are far from naturally looking and to my best option they look disgusting. =Nichalp«Talk»=01:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One who tries to improve an article is better that one who complains about other' attempts. If you think they look disgusting, why dont u use your 'professional' skills rather than compain about it. Nikkul18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to bait me? Wikipedia is not the place to try extraordanary skills. Adding clouds to the BSE image etc... This is not the appropriate forum for such creative work. Please use flickr or deviant art as a test bed instead. =Nichalp«Talk»=18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the images had been so heavily photoshopped. See
While cropping or minor histogram equalization is understandable, photoshopping images to introduce fictional elements in the scene (horizontal symmetry in the first image and clouds in the second) is certainly not kosher for an encyclopedia (except to illustrate articles on photo editing). The fact that the editing was "horrible" is irrelevant - the visual deception perpetrated by these images makes them unencyclopedic and they should IMO be deleted from wikipedia. I trust that Nikkul meant well in editing these images and adding them to this (and other ?) article(s); but I hope that this is not repeated and any other similarly "enhanced" images will be voluntarily flagged for deletion by him. Abecedare19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, I just read your dialogue with the owner of the NorthBlockNewDelhi image, and I was really impressed with how you worked out the licensing with him! I do think the non-photoshopped versions are better for encyclopedic content though. Brightness/contrast adjustments are fine, but beyond that might give people a different impression than if they were physically there. -- Thoreaulylazy23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand that adding clouds and stuff is not right. I was only trying to make it more appealing to the eye. I will not do that again. But I do not like my goodwilled efforts to be labeled and called "horrible" by someone who is not willing to improve them, just criticize them. I will add the original image soon and have these deleted. Nikkul19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please get this straight Nikkul. We are an encyclopedia, not a site for eye-catching images. If we can muster an encyclopedic image which is also eye-catching, that's always a bonus. You attempts to photoshop went overboard. =Nichalp«Talk»=13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to say but 'Nikkul- bashing' is how this Talkpage works and will be working (thats what I make of my stay on Wikipedia). You'll have to get used to it. Don't be discouraged. Just keep on moving. (But I must say, your removal of important stuff from the lead under the disguise of "grammar" was very disappointing)KnowledgeHegemony14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Knowledge. Actually, I was correcting grammar and stuff and then I previewed it and before i saved it i saw that I could make other changes in the actual words and once i got into it, i wanted to save the information. my appologies. anyway, i'll be adding the pictures soon. Nikkul21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
FA status
Considering the incessant disputes and accompanying tags, shouldn't be remove featured article status from this article? Some sections aren't even well-sourced. The Behnam16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I advise you to read Copy editing and sourcing. Since we need volunteers, perhaps you would like to volunteer to copy-edit a section like "Government." As for the tags, they went on this morning. But since you seem to be convinced that it doesn't deserve its FA status, why don't you request a review (with a view to eventual decommissioning of FA status) at Wikipedia:Featured article review? Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are shying away from asking for the review. My understanding is that it is the only way to de-feature the article. I am inviting to get the ball rolling. Why the reticence now? Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
From WP:WIAFA..."It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject" - considering that images have long been disputed we can't be certain about this criterion. The removal of the Toda hut, however, does help to resolve this problem. The Behnam00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to chicken out that easily, The Behnam? I'm champing at the bit to see you see your inimitably worded review being filed. Oh, and by the way, are you still free for the helping out with editing the government section, or are you going to be a Monday morning quarterback for a few more Mondays yet? Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's basis for dispute has been brought up by Nikkul and his sockpuppets to begin with. I don't see any qualifications on your part to yet have taken part in getting any wikipedia article featured, so to bring about the suggestion that this article needs to be delisted on a rather trivial ground is a matter of non-consequence. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's simple - with the Toda image gone and not likely to return (at least not without violating consensus and ignoring strong arguments), the problem is solved. The article is much improved by the absence of the Toda hut, don't you agree? Honestly, I'd prefer just one image (that of the Taj Mahal) since I don't think that the section is large enough to warrant two, but unlike the struggle to remove the Apatani and Toda images (which were very inappropriate in the article as they were), the matter of one or two is not major, and hence shouldn't threaten the quality asserted by FA status. The Behnam03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
just because a lot of people are absolutely obsessing over every detail of this article doesn't make it less FA-worthy. To the contrary, there are few more closely watched and talked-to-death articles than this one. Now if only editors would care a little more about the many, many India-related articles that languish in an absolutely apalling state. I have rarely seen more horrible prose than at anon-created articles about some obscure India related topic on Wikipedia. Go after cleaning up those instead of bickering about every character on this article. dab(𒁳)07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
if only people with the dubious distinction of over a 1000 edits on this talk page alone could take note... Sarvagnya11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, 2c. in turn refers to 1c. which seems to favor the Harvard system. I personally think that the Harvard system is the best for many reasons: (i) it doesn't clog up the main text (wikitext) with long boxes that make it impossible to decide what is text and what is footnote, (ii) it keeps the footnotes short and can be more specific, i.e. provide different page numbers for different footnotes corresponding to the same text, with minimal repetition. (iii) it provides a solid set of references that the reader can refer to (rather than looking for references in a jumbled mass of (foot)notes. I will begin to convert the references in flora and fauna to Harvnb format. The Harvard system may seem more complicated at first, but it really is less work in the end, especially in a long article that needs clarity. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Featured Picture in the Culture Section of a Featured Country Article
{{RFCmedia| section=Request for Comment: Featured Picture in the Culture Section of a Featured Country Article!! reason=A dispute over the appropriateness of a featured picture in the culture section of the featured country article [[India]] !! time=16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) }}
{{RFCreli| section=Request for Comment: Featured Picture in the Culture Section of a Featured Country Article!! reason=A dispute over the appropriateness of a featured picture in the culture section of the featured country article [[India]] !! time=16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)}}
{{RFCsoc| section=Request for Comment: Featured Picture in the Culture Section of a Featured Country Article!! reason=A dispute over the appropriateness of a featured picture in the culture section of the featured country article [[India]] !! time=16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)}}
The "Toda hut" image is a Wikipedia Featured picture that, along with an image of the Taj Mahal, has accompanied the text of the culture section of the FAIndia since January 2007. (Since the image has been removed for this RfC, it is no longer on the India page itself, but can be seen in its context, in the page history here). The Toda people, whose sacred dairy is featured in the image, have contributed not only to the culture of India, but also to Culture as defined more broadly on the Wikipedia Culture page. Although a minuscule fraction of the population of India, the Toda have since the early nineteenth century attracted disproportionate scholarly interest, and remain one of the most studied ethnic groups in Asia. They are, along with the Andamanese, among the "classic" cultures of Social Anthropology, known through the works two of the field's founders W. H. R. Rivers and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown.[3] In addition, the Toda's preeminent art form, extempore song,[1] through M. B. Emeneau's monumental Toda Songs, was important in the creation of the new field of Ethnomusicology in the 1980s.[2] Although their traditional lifestyle of buffalo herding was affected during the years 1970-95 consequent to the state government's promotion of agriculture, they have during the last decade become the center of an effort at culturally sensitive environmental restoration.[4] The Toda lands are now a part of The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, a UNESCO-designated International Biosphere Reserve, and also part of a larger area under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for selection as a World Heritage Site.[5] The Todas culture is a superb example of India's diverse folk culture, which, thankfully, is still surviving, if only barely so.
However, from the time of the image's appearance on the India page, it has also drawn criticism, especially from editors, who feel that the image of a "grass hut" is not appropriate to India's ancient and glorious culture. These editors would prefer to see more "mainstream" images like that of a temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List, or that of Rabindranath Tagore, India's only Nobel laureate in literature: examples of High culture, rather than the Folk Culture exemplified by the Toda people. These editors claim too that the Toda image is not representative of India, since, the Toda population of approximately one thousand constitutes too small a minority to deserve attention (much less pride of place) on the India page. They feel that there are more appropriate images of India's culture that rightfully belong to the culture section instead. However, when I examined other country FAs, I discovered that eleven of the (total) fifteen combine images of "High Culture" and "Folk Culture," in ways akin to the "Taj Mahal" and the "Toda hut" combination:
Expand to see culture in 11 of the 15 country FAs:
of the 15 country Featured Articles other than India, only three or four focus on "high culture" in their pictures, the rest (11) are more like India:
Canada: Culture (First image is of a Kwakwaka'wakwtotem pole and traditional "big house" in Victoria, BC. Note that the Kwakwaka'wakw have a total population of 5,500 and a total of 250 speakers of their language. The other image is of a Mountie ...)
Belgium:Culture (One picture each for "Fine arts" and "Folklore")
Cambodia: Culture and Society (In spite of the many available images of Angkor Wat, they chose a picture of the "exterior of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, Phnom Penh."
The questions, then, that I would like to request comments on are:
Does their population size of one thousand, a small percentage of India's one billion, rule out the Toda from having their image displayed on the India page?
If not, then does the display of that image, constitute and example of UNDUE WEIGHT?
Is the Wikipedia culture section only about High culture? If not: do the Toda people constitute a notable enough example of India's folk culture to merit inclusion in the culture section? Alternatively, does the inclusion of the Toda image constitute a violation of WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity, which recommends, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability" (relative to the article's or section's topic)?
Does the Toda image's Featured Picture status, which none of the proposed replacement images have, count for something?
Is it appropriate to regard this as only an India-page dispute and resolve it by a quick head count, of editors who have weighed in on it in the last two or three days, including those, like user:Priyanath, user:Sarvagnya, and user:The Behnam, who have little or no history of actually editing the India page?[6] Or is it more appropriate to see this as an instance of a wider problem and to invite Wikipedia-wide expertise as this RfC hopes to do?
Nettl, Bruno; Bohlman, Phillip Vilas (1991), Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music: Essays on the History of Ethnomusicology, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, Pp. 396, pp. 438–449, ISBN0226574091.
Rabindranath Tagore became Asia's first Nobel laureate when he won the 1913 Nobel Prize in Literature.Lack of Notability. WP:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity states that "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that a Featured Article "has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject." In fact, a Featured Article is held to higher standards than the typical article, and in that case these issues of pertinence to the placement of the image, and the image’s notability, should be more strictly applied, rather than less. No mention is made in either case of any priority attached to using featured images in featured articles.
The Todas are a tribe of 1,400 in a nation of one billion, and thus do not represent any relevant or notable aspect of India. Their huts, while very interesting, have no claim of special notability in Indian Culture. The photo is a beautiful featured photo, and is appropriately placed in articles where it is relevant, such as Toda people and Vernacular architecture. There is also no mention of the Toda people in the article, so the image clearly does not meet the requirement of "notability (relative to the article's topic)." While the Toda are representative of the tribal demographic of India (8.1%), their culture is not especially notable.
There are many images which are much more notable and relevant to this article. The toda hut image means that images representing extremely notable features of Indian Culture are not allowed in this article, due to limited space. Rabindranath Tagore, for example, who's image Fowler keeps deleting, is Asia's first Nobel laureate (the 1913 Nobel Prize in Literature), a poet, artist, and musician, and extremely notable in India's cultural heritage. Can any reasonable argument be made that a hut is more notable that Tagore? There are many other images which much better represent India's great cultural heritage: temples, sculpture, art, music, etc. The hut would probably not make the top 100 of a list of notable, relevant, encyclopedic images that represent India's culture. This is the biggest shame here - that truly relevant and notable aspects of India's culture are being deprecated by the insistence of Fowler that the hut is more relevant and notable than the others.
Consensus in this discussion is 5-2 in favor of removing the hut from the article, at this point. Behnam, Nikkul, Sarvagnya, Thoreaulylazy, and myself all strongly oppose the relevance and notability of the hut for this article. Fowler and Nichalp are the only voices supporting it.
Sorry to break this thread, but the two of us are not the only ones who "support" it. A lot of senior Indian editors, with far greater contributions to the article have also supported its inclusion. Please see the archives. =Nichalp«Talk»=12:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the most recent discussion in June, and it seemed much like this one - with a couple of additional editors on each side of the issue. The hut image is so non-notable for this article that it will continue to be contentious until a truly appropriate image takes its place. The Tagore image, I believe, is the most appropriate one because he embodies Indian Culture (poetry, music, dance, literature, art), and is recognized throughout the world for his poetry and Nobel prize. In addition, his composition of the Indian national anthem makes him a universal choice (rather than a regional (toda) or sectarian (Nikkul's recent try to highlight Hinduism) one. There may be other images that also have those qualities. But it's certainly a huge step in the right direction, and that's why consensus is behind it. See, I think it's no longer just 'Toda Hut is non-notable' but 'Here's one that is obviously much more appropriate', and so this is a different discussion. ॐ Priyanathtalk21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For all these reasons: notability, consensus, and Wikipedia policy on images shown above - the hut clearly should not be in this article. I find it appalling that it has remained here for one year over the opposition of many long-time editors of India-related articles.
The comparison to other nations' culture sections is irrelevant. We are discussing the notability of the hut for this article and section - India, Culture. It is not notable.
An image is not required to be a featured image to appear in a featured article - it must be notable "relative to the article's topic".
The fact that the hut has been in this article for a year is testimony only to Fowler's intransigence. He is typically a clear-minded and encyclopedic editor. I am truly puzzled by his insistence on this image.
His information about the Todas is, I assume, accurate and interesting in its own right. But it is not notable for this article.
His argument that other nations' culture sections show folk art and images is extremely specious. Those articles typically show images that are widely associated with the aboriginal cultures of those countries, such as the totem pole in the Canada article. On visits to Canada, I've seen the totem pole widely displayed in front of shops in Canada, because it is a very popular part of Canada's heritage. I've never seen a Toda hut in front of a shop in India, because it's not a notable part of India's culture and heritage.
I hope that Fowler will keep this discussion to the issues. He very uncivilly told me that "you do nothing but advertise your ignorance" in this edit summary.[9] He's also accused me of merely making "facile drive-by edits".[10] While I've productively edited many India related articles over the last two years, I've stayed away from this article until now, which is not relevant to the issue of the hut.
Comment:
If there is a section added to the article about India's tribes, mentioning the Todas, then I would be very supportive of this image being in that section. But to replace an image of Rabindranath Tagore with a hut, or to keep out other extremely notable features of Indian culture with a picture of a hut, is unencyclopedic to say the least.
More images that truly and widely speak to India's cultural heritage
The Ellora temples were not constructed, but carved out of solid rock
Additional Comment At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Fowler raises the interesting and valid perspective of other encyclopedias, that "Britannica seemed to be more conservative in its choice of images, i.e. preferring the more conventionally representative images, whereas Encarta at least some of the time either used images to provide contrast to the text or presented the unconventional viewpoint in the images as well as the text. It is such questions that are being explored in the RfC." This is a more general policy issue, but one that is relevant to this discussion. Adding an unconventional image in some cases, if it meets with widespread approval, might be a very good idea. But the potential for giving Undue Weight to a minority point of view is very real. If there is strong opposition, with reasonable explanation, by a relevant number of editors, then the more conventional approach should be taken. ॐ Priyanathtalk00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of small groups who number less than 2000 in India. And ALL have a culture that they have formed over the last hundreds of years. Many have been studied by foreigners. I would like to ask anyone who supports the Toda image this question: "Who are you to decide that the Toda's (who are one of thousands of Indian tribes) will get their image on Wikipedia. Who are you to decide that the other small groups do not deserve to have their image on Wikipedia, but the Toda's do?" If we start looking at the minorities, we will not be able to focus on one. Besides the Todas there are sooooo many other tribes like Chenchus, Konda Reddis, Kolams, Naikpods, Nishis, Apa Tanis,Khovas, Sherdukpens, Monpas, And MANY MANY MANY more. For the list see this: List of Scheduled Tribes in India. It is not as if India is made up of only tribes. All these tribes form only 8 percent of India! In a summary of Indian culture, you can not disregard 92 percent of a country and favor the 8 percent.. But If we do decide that these tribes should be given representation on the page, then who is going to be the one saying "This tribe should have their image on Wiki while the rest of the thousands shouldnt" No one tribe is better than another. Hence, the best thing to do is to pick a majority instead of many minorities. It is not only the smart thing to do but also the obvious thing to do.
The Toda's number less than 1400. This makes them .0001 % of the Indian population. By having this image, you are totally ignoring the culture of literally 99.9999% of India. This not only contradicts the Wikipedia relevance policy but also does not belong in a summary of India's culture.
A group that does not deserve to be mentioned in the summary of the section should not have an image in it either.
There is NO mention of the Toda's or of housing in the culture section while there is mention of Hinduism, Diwali, sports, etc, all of which have very relevant images that can be used. Hinduism for example forms 80 percent of india and Hindu traditions would make more sense in the culture section because they represent 80% of the topic at hand rather than the .0001% that the Toda hut represents. Toda architecture is NOT at all prevalent throughout India. Infact, it is confined to a very very very small area of India while Hinduism is prevalent in ALL of India. If there were no images left in the world besides the toda image, even then i would not use it because it is a misrepresentation. But thankfully, there are millions of images relating to Indian culture and they would better suit the section. The toda hut does not represent Indian culture at all.
Todas dont live in huts anymore. They have started living in modern homes. [11]
Additionally, there is no need for mediation. Concensus has already been established based on past discussions:
Sorry, old "votes" don't count. They have to be signed with a date stamp during the RfC. Sorry, I take that back. I think the point of an RfC is to invite comments from others, not to start a parallel election for an image candidate. It undermines the "complexity" an RfC aims to achieve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Even though this is not a vote, we should not remove the signatures of people who actually had signed; they would need to do that. I have therefore re-instated them. The other names on the list were added by user:Nikkul based on his understanding of their views or previous comments, as has been reiterated by user:Priyanath and acknowledged by user:Nikkul himself below. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the above list is Nikkul's own listing of what he sees as previous editor's expressed opinions about the hut. This isn't a 'vote', but only Nikkul's comments. Some editors have begun adding their 'votes'. If we're going to have a 'vote', it should be done separately. Voting is not a reliable way to settle content disputes on Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanathtalk03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree...this is my comments section and not a vote. I am just laying out the concensus that has formed about this issue based on discussions.Nikkul06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, I would request you to remove your list. Not only is it imprecise, representing your personal view of what someone might or might not have said in the past on these or other pages, but, more importantly, it confuses editors new to the RfC about what is expected of them. The point of the RfC is to invite comment on the statements, which are inevitably complex. By holding an "election," as it were, as a part of our own comment, you are undermining that complexity, and therefore the RfC itself; more importantly, you also are undermining Official Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ideas that a straw poll are "undermining the legitimacy of wikipedia" are inane, ludicrous, and mischievous. The small minority promoting the Toda image could be said to be violating official wikipedia policy as well, since the few legitimate editors and a plethora of POV-pushing (mainly Dravidian-nationalist or Christian) users are reverting when popular opinion is clearly against them. We have an infinite number of tribes in India, and there is no need for us to focus on a rather obscure tribe that is a poster child of anthropology journals in lieu of more representative candidates for "Indian people".Bakaman23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To Bakaman: Please correct or clarify the following (taken from your text above):
When you write, " 'undermining the legitimacy of wikipedia,' " (within quotes) you are indicating that you are quoting something. What are you quoting? Apparently those words were never used.
"inane," by the way means, "devoid of sense, empty or void." By definition, something "inane" can't also be "mischievous," since the latter requires intelligence and deliberation.
WP:TE is not official Wikipedia policy, only an essay.
Please choose the correct article: "since (a/the) few legitimate editors ..."
"... a plethora of POV-pushing ... users ..." "Plethora" means overabundance or excess and consequently presupposes an acceptable level (of POV-pushing users). What is that acceptable level?
"We have an infinite number of tribes in India" How come the country's population is only one billion?
"a rather obscure tribe that is a poster child of anthropology journals." First, it is "poster child for." Second, a poster child is a prominent example or type of something. You can be a poster child for anthropology, but not for "anthropology journals" unless you are made of paper.
"in lieu of more representative candidates for 'Indian people'" Most people know the meaning of "Indian people" on a Talk:India page until they read your link and discover that it could be an ocean.
Amazingly many of us do not sit with our heads stuck in a grammar book, blissfully unaware about the growing disconnect between the world of semantics and reality. Noting this, english is a beautiful language precisely because of the freedom is allows us. Those that live in a world of syntax have their place (stuck in the ivory tower), where they are shielded from the obviously inferior proles, whose vulgar use of the english language is to be scoffed at and ridiculed.
Inane means empty and unsubstantial, according to Merriam-Webster. Your statement about "undermining official wikipedia policy" was inane.
I made a typo, I meant WP:DE. That is an official policy.
The rest of your points are so insipid that it would really obfuscate the issue by responding.
I am sorry my statements were not myopic and PC enough for you, it must go well with the ivory tower to put a "heathen and uncivilized native" instead of much more representative pictures. Never mind that Wikipedia reflects the world as a whole, not paternalistic Britain's worldview.Bakaman16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope it is clear that this is not a vote as has been said before. This is my point that mediation is not needed because a consensus has already been formed. I have reviewed the past discussions and this is what i have found. I am only pointing out the consensus which does not violate any policy. I have listed this under my comments and not under any other section (making it clear that this is my opinion) and it will not be removed just because it undermines ur argument. Nikkul23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, you say it is clear that consensus has already been formed. Your sentence itself is contradictory. "It is clear" -- how is it so clear? Are you the arbitrator of this exercise? "already been formed" -- already? formed? When did this happen? 1. What metrics are you using to determine if consensus has been formed? 2. And, as party to the dispute, why do you think that your statement that "consensus has been reached" would be fair, and not from a neutral point of view? Questions Nikkul, we'd like you to answer. =Nichalp«Talk»=03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nichalp, I think anyone who has the ability to count will see that one side outweighs the other. I am just pointing this out visually. This is my comment section, where I am allowed to share my feelings. I am not saying this is official. It is a rough count of what people think over the past few months about this issue. Nikkul20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I support removing of Toda hut image. My reasoning is simple: The Toda hut image is really not that crucial to the article. In fact, the decision to include it is a subjective one. This means that it is not worth the division it has been causing for more than a year now and all the "discussions" we have had related to it. --Blacksun11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is flawed. You can not keep a bad image because there are other better images to replace it. A few people have suggested a temple or Diwali image (even Priyanath). But most have opposed the Toda image Nikkul00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul - I haven't mentioned a Diwali image. I did offer some temple images, only because of their architectural significance. I think a temple image may not be the best choice, unless it's solely for historical, cultural-architectural reasons (as opposed to highlighting the particular religion). I also think that there needs to be more than just pictures of buildings to show the culture of India. That's why I keep coming back to Tagore - his image makes sense on so many levels - poet, artist, dance, musician, India's first Nobel, wrote the national anthem, etc. ॐ Priyanathtalk03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah i know you havent proposed the diwali idea, but other ppl have. thats why i said temple or diwali. anyway cheers Nikkul06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fowler, I see what you are saying. However, Toda image has been a major issue every few months for over a year now. Other images get some rebuttals too but none come close to the heat generated over Toda image. That coupled with the fact that it is a subjective choice, I do not find it necessary to sticking to toda guns when it is clearly not liked by a lot of other editors. Some might call it caving in - I would disagree with that assessment though. Finally, as someone posted (supported by a link), Toda's do not live in the Toda huts anymore (for the most part). The image in its present status arguably stereotypes the Todas. Question is quite simply: Why should we keep fighting over an image that cannot be deemed as crucial to the content of the article? A little flexibility is called for. Is it possible to have random display of images from a selected pool or some type of rotation? I am not sure what is the policy regarding this. --Blacksun08:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have been on Wikipedia since October 2006; I don't remember the image appearing on the India page until January 2007 or thereabouts. There were no specific objections to the Toda image until Nikkul started his campaign to refurbish the pictures, by first going after Apatani and then Toda (both Featured Pictures). Before that there were calls for changes in general; of these, I myself, twice started discussions on having rotations every six months. (Someone like Chanakyathegreat or Ganeshk will testify to this). What perplexes me is that the "Against Toda" team doesn't say, "We are tired of looking at the same images. Give us new ones." That, of course, will apply to the Taj Mahal as well, which is a lot more hackneyed than the Toda image. Instead, with the exception of Sarvagnya who has objected to the Taj image as well, they mostly repeat, "We don't like the Toda image." And they then add what I think are spurious reasons about the image not being representative. The point, for me, is that Indian culture, like any culture, is complicated. 60 percent of it is still rural or tribal. How is Tagore a representative of that India? More generally, the Wikipedia rule book aside, images are not chosen only because they are representative; they are chosen sometimes because they point out a contrast, or oftentimes for their graphic quality or their art; in other words, something that makes you sit up and notice. Whatever else you might say about the Toda image, it is undeniable that it provokes curiosity; when you click on it, you find yourself examining the size of the door, the blades of grass, the murals, .... It was the same with the Apatani image, people may have thought it was ugly, but they likely spent spent more time examining it than they will ever the beloved face of Bengal's poet laureate. As for the Toda not living in huts any more, that is an old link. Please see my sub-page here (including Tarun Chhabra's powerpoint) for an updated picture. I am all for flexibility and rotation, but that needs to be done generally by first figuring out some principles. What I don't like is people targeting the Toda image. Why not go after the Taj first? Or, since most of the "Against" are newcomers to the India page, "Why not help with editing the Government section?" Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Blacksun is correct, toda hut is an entirely subjective choice. The extreme support shown by a few people for an image that is so obscure and non-notable suggests there's something more going on here than meets the eye. It will continue to tie up editor's time as long as it's here - because it eliminates much better images that demonstrate India's Culture. It is not critical to this article, and trivializes both the toda (who no longer live in rattan huts) and Indian Culture. But why are we arguing over the hut? The discussion here should be more along the lines of 'is Rabindranath Tagore (or fill in the blank with another notable feature of Indian Culture) so non-notable to Indian Culture that his image should be eliminated to show a toda hut?ॐ Priyanathtalk15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The extreme support shown by a few people for an image that is so obscure and non-notable suggests there's something more going on here than meets the eye. There is nothing extream about wanting to project a complete imgaje of a dynamic and diverse country, not just a white washed version of someone's imagination as to what that should be. Thanks Taprobanus15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that two photos of buildings, the Taj Mahal and a hut, give a complete or diverse image of Indian Culture. I am assuming good faith on the part of others, I just don't understand how these two buildings give a more complete and diverse image than, say, an artist, poet, and musician like Tagore. Or many other possibilities. You'll have to trust me also—I'm not trying to project a whitewashed image of India, but one that is true, diverse, and complete. If there were room for one more image, or an image gallery, that would be a solution. The hut image as part of a gallery with others would show that India's culture is more than (a) buildings and tribes. It's people, art, literature, dance, music, and a whole lot more. I think the most relevant parts of India's diverse culture are being severely short-changed here. ॐ Priyanathtalk23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching this situation for a long time although refrained from any comment. I have edited Toda page in the past and have an interest in subaltern subject matters in Wikipedia. I think that by removing the Toda hut image from the India article makes it poorer in its content. India is a kaleidoscope people, culture and languages. Most mainstream articles about India ignore that diversity and concentrate on what is considered to be manifestation of elitist culture ignoring the way of life of the subaltern and marginalized groups. Paradoxically the true Indian culture (if you speak numerically) is experienced by these very people who are ignored in any mainstream culture. For those interested in this aspect of India, the best starting source would be Myth and Reality, Studies in the formation of Indian culture by D.D.Kosambi would be of great help. The Toda Hut picture brings to the readers mind that India is not just Diwali , Taj Mahal and Cricket as populist belief would have us believe. But it is a lot more nuanced, varied, and dynamic place. Toda hut has a place in India article. Thanks Taprobanus13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Diwali, cricket, temples, etc. are a way of life in India. To imply that these things are elitist, whereas Toda hut is somehow more of a "true Indian culture" is perhaps the only elitist thinking going on here sprinkled with a healthy dose of delusion. Having said that I personally do not have any problem with the image except for the part where it is not worth the division amongst the editors. --Blacksun21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, pop culture is far more notable and non-elitist than university case-studies of "curious tribes" as others have put it. I'm always amazed by the ubiquity and frenzy over things like Bollywood, cricket, and festivals such as Diwali and Holi. The India page is for readers to find an introduction to India, and therefore I think the section on culture should expand on these ubiquitous topics rather than give undue weight to rarities. Thoreaulylazy04:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to break the bubble, plurality of Indians still live in huts not in Taj Mahals but the Toda hut is the best looking Hut I have seen in India. The Norm would be what we find in Dharavi. Now do we want to add a picture of Dharavi because that is a notable item ? just curious also I think the gallary suggestion is a good compromiseTaprobanus13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think what Taprobanus is trying to say is that the Toda hut is as much a part of Indian culture as cricket and dipavali; to imply that it is somehow less a part of Indian culture than the Taj Mahal - as some comments seem to be suggesting - is elitist. And, unlike cricket, it is indigenous to India.
Those who remember my struggles to have the article acknowledge the fact that the Northeast exists will probably not be surprised to hear that I agree strongly. But - as with coverage of the Northeast - it's not worth spending time fighting over (in my opinion). There're hundreds of articles about India waiting to be written or crying out for improvement. I actually really don't understand why this hut has become such a big issue. -- Arvind21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If there were the possibility of an image gallery in the Culture section, even with just 3-4 images, then the hut would arguably fit in the context of the others. But to have place of prominence next to the Taj Mahal, while ignoring all other aspects of Indian Culture, gives it undue weight. I would be open to a compromise that included the hut with some others. Is that 'acceptable' in a FA, to have an image gallery showing 3-4 photos? Then truly relevant aspects of Indian Culture could be given Due Weight. ॐ Priyanathtalk00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that is an excellent suggestion, but also consider adding pictures of people from Andaman Islands and the Indian North East, it would really bring out the diversity of India Taprobanus13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There's several things here - so lets get the simple ones out of the way first. That has to do with arguments in favour of the toda pic.
"it is a featured pic" is a non argument. it has been refuted a million times, but it keeps being raked up over and over and over again.
"...counterpoint and counterpoise/contrast..." - that like Blacksun and others (including myself) have pointed out is purely a question of aesthetics and therefore, emphatically subjective. Those bandying that line surely recognize that but seem to hope that people will simply buy what they think is a reasonable and sound argument if they keep repeating it enough times.
What they dont seem to realize is that, while their "contrast" argument may very well be a 'reasonable' argument in the real world, it is NOT so on wikipedia. In the real world, I could make a case that a rose is more beautiful than a lily and might even be able to bring around a majority to support my view and sense of aesthetics. On wikipedia however, I wouldnt stand a whiff of a chance with such arguments.
That said, the problems here go much deeper. The biggest lie that routinely makes the rounds around these parts is that this is a summary article. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A summary article is one where each section is a summary of a reasonably comprehensive and well written child article. I'd like to see someone show me atleast one section which can reasonably claim to be a summary of a half decent child article. Until we fix that, these problems will continue to sprout. And article expansion will be both a means and an inevitable result of such a 'fix'. So it is high time people stopped acting like the article would blow up with the slightest expansion of the article.
All those waxing eloquent about Toda and tribal culture in general, would do well to go and add some of that info to the Culture of India article. At the moment, that article has ... hold your breath.. 0 bytes dedicated to Todas and Apatanis put together. There is in fact, no mention of tribals at all! If these tribes cant find a place in a child article, they shouldnt find a place in what is claimed to be a summary article. If Bose, who is a million times more notable in the context of the Indian independence movement than the Todas are in the context of culture, has to fight for even so much as a mention in this article, I dont see the Toda pic making it into the article in a million years. For that matter, I'd even argue that since Gandhi, the pacifist face of the IIM is shown, we should also have a pic of Bose, arguably the 'non-pacifist' face of the IIM! counter point and counterpoise folks, counter point and counterpoise!
Each time a newbie tries to add something to this article, he is driven, nay hounded away by the Fowlers and the Saravasks and the Nichalps who jump in with their staple "this is a summary article" nonsense. And since their Toda pic fails because of that very argument, they now want us to buy into their sense of aesthetics. Neat.
I have not only pointed out how cliched the Taj pic is.. but as far as I can remember, I've (along with Arvind) been the only one who's complained of systemic bias on this and other articles. I am all for giving non-mainstream(which often times simply is the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome at work and not relative merit) things and people more visibility on wikipedia but not like this. You cant throw crumbs in the form of a pic and be done with it. Its condescending. Its almost like saying.. "hey.. this is a summary article.. so the NE(for example) is mostly backward and cant elbow the BSEs and the SEZs out of the economy section.. they pretty much dont fit in any section coz they're either non-"mainstream" or at the bottom rung of everything.... so just to give them some room and just to make sure there's a superficial balance, lets drop some pics and be done" That seems to be what is guiding the addition of pics like the apatani and the toda pic. And that is what I wouldnt allow. The right way to do it would be to start a "Scheduled castes and tribes" subsection of "Demographics" and then write a 4-5 line paragraph about the SC and Ts and then pick a suitable picture like the toda or the apatani one to accompany the subsection. Throwing a pic here and a pic there and claiming to have taken care of systemic bias just doesnt fly. Sarvagnya01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Then you are saying that if a section on the tribal peoples of India is included (with some mention of Todas) you would support having the Toda pic in the article ? Sinhala freedom03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the Toda hut picture be the root cause of this discord and I find it sad that the picture is turning into a battleground. It looks very unique and surely must enrich the article, that is not to say the other pictures don't. I have certainly gotten very curious about Todas from looking at it. We must remember the tribal people are largely voiceless in many parts of the world. I am not sure how true that is within the regions of India. One thing that makes it all the more poignant is that it sounds like there is about a 1000 Toda speakers left which usually implies the culture is heading towards extinction within a few generations. I think Sarvagnya proposes a very reasonable solution, that is to have a section on the tribal people and have a picture accompanying it. Would there be any opposition to that ? Sinhala freedom04:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea!!! If the tribal people are so notable (and I believe they are), then of course they should have a relevant mention in the Demographics section, with a photo of.....the Toda Hut! Then the Culture section could have a photo relating to.....Culture. ॐ Priyanathtalk04:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sinhala freedom, There are lots of compromise ideas, including some I wrote up at the time I wrote the RfC, but I think it is best for the RfC to run its course, rather than change its focus. At least in my statement I asked some questions, I would be happy if people addressed those. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, since you brought up a compromise, I went back and found what I had written. Here it is: "Tentative Proposal, which I will bring up on the Talk:India page after the RfC is over: We should expand the culture section by 30%, but about four-fifths of the expansion (i.e. 25% of the culture section) should be devoted to the culture of the Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of India. Since according to the 2001 SC-ST Demographics Table the SC+ST add up to 16.2+8.2 = approximately 25% of the population, and since their culture is largely outside the mainstream culture of India, it is reasonable that we do this. That means that the current text below (which is all about the mainstream culture will be expanded at most by five percent." Some thing along those lines, but in the culture section, not in demographics. That also means the most expansion will be in the realm of tribal/rural culture. As for your remarks above, the Toda population has been constant for about a century (around a thousand), so they are not disappearing. The reasons why they have attracted attention are complicated. Starting in the 1650s the Toda came to attract the attention of the Europeans in India. They became an especial focus of ethnographers from 1850 onwards, W. H. R. Rivers being the most prominent. There's even a book chapter, "The Western Romance with the Toda" by Anthony Walker from a few years ago. It has nothing to do with the motivations Sarvagnya was postulating upstairs, but mostly due to their unique culture. The Nagas, and the Andamanese attracted similar attention. The Toda, btw, have not really been poor in the sense that the urban poor or rural poor are. They have a low maintenance lifestyle. But they have not had malnutrition, anemia, etc like the rest of rural India. Anyway, more another time. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. I should add that my proposal above is not a compromise proposal, but one that, in my opinion, should be implemented regardless of the image choice, which I hope will remain: Taj + Toda. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal view is that Tagore's image is an excellent choice, but it's given with the caveat that I haven't contributed at all to the article -- Samir02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The caveat you mention is of no consequence and bothers no one except Fowler, bogus as his argument is anyway. Sarvagnya04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Does their population size of one thousand, a small percentage of India's one billion, rule out the Toda from having their image displayed on the India page?
No, particularly because there's no single representative and the bigger groups are numerous and near-equal. We can't apply weight principle here, because any choice would be undue. In such a scenario, having an extreme pair represent the diversity is a good idea.
If not, then does the display of that image, constitute and example of UNDUE WEIGHT?
No per my comment above.
Is the Wikipedia culture section only about High culture? If not: do the Toda people constitute a notable enough example of India's folk culture to merit inclusion in the culture section?
Tribal society and culture need to be touched upon in the India article given that they're very much an integral part of this region for several centuries and the Toda image doesn't just represent the Toda people, but the whole tribal culture in India.
Does the Toda image's Featured Picture status, which none of the proposed replacement images have, count for something?
It definitely counts, but doesn't carry much weight.
Is it appropriate to regard this as only an India-page dispute and resolve it by a quick head count, of editors who have weighed in on it in the last two or three days, including those, like user:Priyanath, user:Sarvagnya, and user:The Behnam, who have little or no history of actually editing the India page? Or is it more appropriate to see this as an instance of a wider problem and to invite Wikipedia-wide expertise as this RfC hopes to do?
Since it has implications for almost all FAs on countries, it's worthwhile inviting wider opinion.
While I agree that Tagore's and Brihadeeswarar temple's images are good candidates for this section, I'm leaning towards having the Toda hut image, per this.
I won't have time until the weekend to write in detail, but I've previously listed my thoughts on this Talk page. One of the points I brought up is how Todas are not mentioned in the Tamil Nadu article, which is their home state. I don't see how they can be included into the national-level page unless they at the very least possess notability at the state-level. Also, very few Todas themselves still have traditional Toda dairies; most have modernized, and therefore they themselves are abandoning the style. Many other folk and traditional styles are not being abandoned, so I would suggest focusing on those styles which will continue to stay in use for the foreseeable future. -- Thoreaulylazy12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Todas don’t belong just in Tamil Nadu, it is modern political construct, they belong to All of South Asia (India in particular) and for those who have been interested in Indology they are one of most curious tribes. A tribe that has many aspects of mainstream Indian culture such as pastoralism, caste system, female infanticide etc etc all while being not even exposed to mainstream Indian culture in the last 2000 years. So in a sence there are South Asians in an archaic sense that the rest of South Asians have forgotten how they came to be Taprobanus13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the level to which they are a "curious tribe" helps, as it needlessly plays on exoticism and is about as useful as using the Amish for the culture of the Unites States. -- Thoreaulylazy19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Tamil Nadu article is quite a disaster at the moment - it doesn't mention any of the minorities indigenous to Tamil Nadu, and it ought not to be the touchstone by which we judge this article. In any event, there's been something of a revival of traditions amongst Todas in recent years, including the building of more traditional huts. Also, this isn't about exocitism - the issue is really about representing the diversity of India in a fair manner, rather than focusing on the stereotyped Great Indian Tradition (as the article is pretty close to doing). FWIW, I think - as Sarvagnya says - that the text of the article also really ought to reflect diversity better than it does. -- Arvind23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thoreaulylazy, I'm sure that you're aware that wikipedia is an open encyclopedia in which content has been contributed from several sources and people. I don't see why there should be a justification to Todas linked to Tamil Nadu, its a simple case of Ignoratio elenchi. If this logic was sound it can be conversely argued that Vajpayee is non notable because his name does not figure in History of India. =Nichalp«Talk»=03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you also realize that the India page isn't providing any original information; it's a summary page, itself based on other summary pages such as History of India, Culture of India, and other summary pages which ultimately terminate at leaf nodes (non-summary pages). I'm not arguing that the Todas lack notability for their own page; they have a page, and I agree they possess notability for that. I'm merely pointing out that information is expected to propagate up this tree which culminates at the root India page, and not simply jump from leaf node to main summary page. Are Todas notable enough to be one wiki page out of millions of wiki pages? Sure. Are they notable enough to be in the national-level culture section? No, because they're not even notable at the state-level, let alone at the Culture of India page. And this reasoning is sound because it does apply to Vajpayee as well; he is absent from the history section of the India page because he's also absent from the History of India page. I firmly believe that the culture section of the India article should only summarize the Culture of India article and not editorialize by adding new information that's absent from the Culture of India page, such as Toda dairies. -- Thoreaulylazy05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what you're saying is correct if we consider the ideal scenario for writing articles where the main India article *should* be a summary of daughter articles. Our ultimate goal is to get all daughter articles featured. In this manner, content present in the lead section of daughter articles is directly cloned into the respective sections of the main India article. However, since our ideal scenario is still far away for being realised, we have a reverse draft of what should be present. We've lost a lot of core featured articles in the recent past as the original article editors have been tied down with non-wikipedia activities ("life"), while the current crop of new editors who have no experience in writing a featured article, only want to promote their narrow divisive agendas on this page. =Nichalp«Talk»=06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments by rueben_lys (talk·contribs): The Toda people are the subject of scholarly interest does not qualify the image as a representative of Indian culture.
I have to agree with Priyanth that the photos he lists of the temple or dance forms etc are more representative of Indian culture than the hut of an extreme minority community. For one the temples, dance, food, painting etc suggested form a regular parts of India, and at least as far as I am aware, you dont really get a lot of people going on holiday to India to see a Toda hut, but you do get a lot of people coming to see the Taj, the temples of Khajuraho, Madurai, going to cultural shows watching Kuchipudi, Bharatnatyam etc, and Indian forms a distinct cuisine in itself. I dont see how the Toda is at all representative of Indian culture, and seems to be more a problem of undue weight. That they're the subject of scholarly interest and the picture is a featured picture skirts the issue of wether it deserves a space in a compressed FA article like India. I believe Fowler used a software in an earlier debate regarding the Indian freedom movement to see what aspects are given due prominence and what are not. Surely this can be done again. I believe the Toda image might fit into a section dealing with ethnic groups and not in the culture section. I would say any of the images proposed by Priyanth earlier are more suitable. As for scholarly interest in the Toda people and Social Anthropology, there is also scholarly interests in the Santal people, and a number of other tribes. You cannot say they form a part of mainstream Indian culture, especially of a people whose population is 700-800 out of, what, 1000000000. The appropriate place for the image is in the Toda people article.Rueben lys11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue that the Toda hut has to be representative of all Indian culture is a fallacy. Can you give us a single example of any item or object or anything else which can be said to be truly and wholly 'Indian culture'. To quantify this clearly, the example you give must be valid in the NE, North India, South India, and central India, viz- the four corners of the country. The image is a depiction of artwork and architecture, and not to mention tribal culture which is part and parcel of an aspect of the culture of India. Your second argument on tourist vising the place is a fallacy of the consequent where conclusion is drawn from premises that do not really support it. =Nichalp«Talk»=12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
To all the advocates of removing the Toda hut, take a look at this image and take a wild guess where I took it out from.
Nichalp, you're committing a logical fallacy by disregarding degree; you're applying logic that's tantamount to claiming a criminal and a charity worker are equal because no one is purely good. Things are not bimodal, it's a not a matter of "represents India" vs "doesn't represent India" in a black-n-white way, you have to keep in mind the degree to which something represents India. Your argument that nothing perfectly represents India is an example of ignoratio elenchi. -- Thoreaulylazy23:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nichalp's reply seems to lack context and is itself fallacious (quite complicatedly worded) is all I can say. Bharatnatyam is well known all over India, as is Kuchipudi, oriya, Bihu etc etc, and these are well recognised as cultural aspects of the respective areas they come from. Ladakh is well known for its Indo-Tibetan culture. The aspects I mention I give above are integral parts of the Kaleidoscope somebody mentioned earlier. For example,
here's the outline of Stan Wolpert's 2005 book India, have a look at the table of contents and have a look at the pages 160-164 and see what it says.
here's a snapshot of Arnett's 2006 book India Unveiled. Have a look at the table of contents at the least.
here's Lonely Planets idea of what's notable in Indian cultural calendar.
Here's an outline of Bobby Khatnam's 2000 booklet India:the culture
Have a look at these and tell me again I am making a fallcaious argument and not you in saying there is nothing that can be deemed mainstream Indian. The hut in the image is not at all a representative image of any prominent mainstream or regional Indian culture. If anything, it just proves that there is a tribe alled the Toda people somewhere in India. That's like having a picture of some Nenets people eating raw reindeer meat and drinking blood and saying thats Russian culture for you.Rueben lys13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Very curious picture. The foliage suggests it can't be the Himalayas or the Indo-Gangetic Plain. (And likely not the Western or Eastern Ghats either.) The shingled roof and the raised foundation suggests plentiful rain in the area, thereby ruling out the Deccan plateau and the Thar Dessert, and leaving Bengal, Goa, or the Islands. The presence of a clean well-maintained side walk so close to the house suggests the house has some historical or touristic significance. Could it be a rustic house in the Poet Laureate's beloved Shantiniketan? Or alternately a house that the tourists who come to Goa or the Andamans pay good money to rent? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
(To Nichalp) PS: The picture you've put up seems more to be what is called a Kuccha house commonly seen in some parts of India in lower socioeconomic strata in urbanish area, and in rural areas, rather than a Tribal hut. If I had to take a wild guess, it's in a town in West Bengal or South India. I would be very surprised if that was a tribal hut.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 October 2007
(To Fowler&fowler) I have been to shantiniketan's Santhal villages quit a few times, unless it is the enclave right next to Tagore's bungalow, I'll be surprised. It does have a resemblance to the huts seen in Shatiniketan though (note they are not Santhal huts) that line the fairground.Rueben lys14:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
(To Rueben lys 13:43, 6 October 2007:) I have not contradicted myself nor have I denied that Diwali, Bhangra, Gumpa dance etc are a part of Indian culture. I perfectly accept the statement. But what I do wish to debate is your singular argument that a Toda hut is not at all notable and cannot be included in the cultural kaleidescope of India. Culture is not and cannot be deemed as something that tourists pay to see. It is not something of monetary value. Authors of Indian cultural events can never be comprehensive, they list the most popular and and most accessible. You still haven't given a clear answer to my question. Name something that a billion Indians can clearly identify with, rather than providing topics that all Indians know of, or have heard of. =Nichalp«Talk»=14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Rueben, Nichalp didn't say it is a tribal hut. As for what the tourists prefer in India here are some Google hits:
Does that mean we are going to remove all the classical dances mentioned in the culture section? And remove Tagore's image as well? 15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. I'm only trying to make a point that culture is not an exact science, so please don't come back at me with "Google hits don't count," or words to that effect, or worse yet, by producing Google results of your own! Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nichalp, I'm not necessarily advocating total removal of the toda hut - only appropriate weight and placement. I don't think anyone is saying it is not part of the "cultural kaleidescope" of India. But it is not notable enough to be given 50% of the image weight in a section on Culture. If there were a kaleidescope image of India's culture that included 100 images, then it might merit inclusion at 1%. But 50%? At the expense of other much more notable images? No. Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a kaleidescope view, but a mainstream and notable view. ॐ Priyanathtalk15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree partly with you Nichalp when you say no unique Indian thing (I am sure somebody will point us wrong), but when you say culture, you're saying stuff like fesivals, food, music, literature, art, architecture etc. Of that you will see what I (after Priyanth) suggested above are the ones that is acknowledged within India as well as outside as integral to the present and past cultural heritage. These include the famous architectural examples all over India (Mughal, pre-Mughal, south Indian, Chola, dravidian, Ajanta Ellora), music (classical, non classical, instrumental, raga based, modern fusion, Sufi, baul, hymns, azwaan, Kawali), Performing arts (Oriya, Kuchipudi, Bharatnatyam, Bihu, Kathak, theatre, folk theatre, ballads, folk music), festivals (Holi, Muharram, Vaishakhi, Ganesh chaturthi, Durga Puja, Pongal), food (North Indian, south Indian, Goanese, Punjabi, Mughlai, Hyderabadi, Bengali), dress ...
I agree with your point that most if not all of these are representative of India as a whole, but they have substantial regional and national prominence and is the culture of millions, and is further well known as aspects of Indian culture. I dont see the image of the Toda hut at all putting forth the image of either the people, the flavour, the life, the whole idea of India. As for the issue of google hits in tourism in India for Toda hut, I will only appeal to logic and common sense(mine as well as anybody elses) if I am told more people go to see Toda people than any other tourist attractions in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
To Rueben lys: "As for the issue of google hits in tourism in India for Toda hut, I will only appeal to logic and common sense(mine as well as anybody elses) if I am told more people go to see Toda people than any other tourist attractions in India." Your first offered us some musings about what tourists prefer to see in India (and you were the first to offer that line argument). Obviously Google hits don't prove that more tourists visit Toda munds than go to Kuchipudi dance performances, but it certainly does indicate that there are more websites (by three to one) that are looking for (or reporting) such tourists. The websites likely wouldn't be there, if the tourists (potential and real) weren't there in the first place. The Toda mund tours are (sadly) also a tourist business in India. And more tourists likely do go on those tours than go see a Kuchipudi dance performance. But no one made the tourist argument until you did; now, having boxed yourself into a corner with it, please down try to wiggle out extricate yourself by appealing to common sense. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
(To Priyanath) How do you decide what appropriate weight is? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Well, more than likely, (and I'm willing to go out on a limb on this one) there are more scholarly sources (books and papers) that refer to the Todas than do to the Chola temples. How would you counter that? Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
PS Just as I had guessed, in the JSTOR academic database, there are 826 returns for the entry: "Toda India" and only 247 for the entry "Chola India. There are more to "Tagore India" (1037), but that certainly doesn't make Toda look like anything to scoff at. I'm happy to check the Library of Congress and the British COPAC catalog as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of those are anthropological studies. I don't think anyone is arguing that the todas are a highly studied group of 1,000. That's why I've suggested that a photo of a toda hut might be appropriate for the demographics section, or a new section on Anthropology Studies in India, if that's notable enough for a summary style article. They are a good example of the tribal demographic. But that doesn't make them anywhere close to notable compared to Tagore, Chola temples, or Bharatanatyam dance for the Culture section. ॐ Priyanathtalk17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I will have to say at first, with due respect, you have a serious problem with wanting to be right and proving others wrong. You yourself had made a great argument earlier about Undue weight in the Indian movement section, surely you can go through the same software again to see how many times the Toda are mentioned in a discussion of Indian culture. And as for wiggling out, I have told you before, and I am having to say this again, dont use trollish words and be courteous.As for more tourists likely to be going on Toda tour than Kuchipudi dance shows, do you really have data on that (I looked through Stan Wolpert and other books to see if they're mentioned in Culture of India, they weren't) And again coming back to common sense, are you seriously sayin Fowler that the Toda is representative of Indian culture? You really need to figure out what you're arguing for and against. More people visit the Qutab Minar, CharMinar, Palaces of Rajasthan, Temples of South India etc etc, and you know that, so dont make disingenuous arguments.
What the JSTOR articles show is that the Toda people are subject of Social anthropoligcal research, going by the titles on the first page I have listed below:
Armchair Musings: Stephen Tyler on Toda Social Organization
Similarly, Chola India would give you a detail of mostly History of the Chola Empire. Searching for and Ajanta and Ellora gives you 156 hits, searching for raaga music gives you 2 hits, so going by your argument, India's culture would be expected to be composed of only the Toda heritage. But its not is it? You see where you've lost focus of the argument. You're trying to say that the Toda people are an integral part of India's culture because you can see that they're the subject of a lot of anthropological work, while what you should be looking at is the Toda culture significant in India? has it or does it contribute any significant cultaral feature to the Indian society? You are free to answer that yourself. Rueben lys18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, all of Fowler's arguments show one thing, and one thing only - that the Toda are notable only for the unusual fact that anthropologists are fascinated by studying this group of 1,000. ॐ Priyanathtalk18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability is notability. It is not for us to discern "correct" and "incorrect" notability. If it's published, it's notable. Saravask22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Saravask, the Toda people maybe notable in their own right as an anthropological group, doesn't make the argument that a photo of their hut forms a notable representative (or even notable part) of Indian culture, and especially in light of earlier discussions, more prominent example of Indian culture than other pics of Dance, music, literature, food, people, notable figures etc etc, which is the issue of the debate here. Where you at all there when we had the huge debate on the Indian freedom movement last month, archived 29-32? You may remember there was a lot of talk on undue weight in an article of limited space? Somebody mentioned earlier of You, Fowler, and Nichalp always having a supporting consensus???Rueben lys22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of the Toda hut pic, it would if you looked through the discussion above and below, and my opening comments. The consensus comment follows from an earlier comment by Sarvagnya archived in 29-31, when he said (in quite different words) that you fowler and Nichalp seem to hold similar views in a number of debates.Rueben lys23:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Who says "anthropological" studies don't belong to culture? Please read Culture. Ultimately, Wikipedia goes by the consensus of reliable sources, not by the consensus of editors, or the consensus of numbers in a population. I am saying that reliable sources in the field of Culture (of India) give at least as much if not more weight to the Toda than they do to Chola Temples. Here, btw, are the search results from the COPAC British Academic and National Library Catalogue: (Keyword: Toda India; 204 returns) (Keywords: Chola Temples India: 79 returns). And here are the results from US Library of Congress On-line Catalog of Books (Keywords: Toda India, 21 returns), (Keywords: Chola Temples India, 22 returns). (Note "Chola Temples" are needed in the keywords to excluded history books that refer to the Cholas.) I'd like to see some real sources from people trying to push the Toda dairy image off the page. Where are they? And please don't produce a Fodor's tourist guide to India as a reference, Rueben lys (or other individual examples). Please don't also go to Amazon or Google Books and do a search on one or two books on culture. No Wikipedia mediation or arbitration committee is going to choose Amazon or Google over the three catalogs I have produced. Remember, Priyanath, a week ago you couldn't stop chuckling at the very idea of the Toda dairy ("grass hut" in your words) being in the culture section of the India page. Well, its time to deliver. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I have to say this quite emphatically now, be courteous, OK. As for culture and anthopolgy and Indian culture and Toda people, tell me Fowler, what are the major contributions of Toda culture to Indian culture? what are the derivatives of past and modern Toda culture to India ancient, past and Modern? How many Toda fesivals are there in the Indian national calendar? How do Toda people and society influence the current Indian society, life, food, music, art, architecture, people, dress, habits, conventions etc? In a land of a billion, what impact does this community of a thousand have on the everyday life of the average Indian? What of the Indian community, society, etc etc can be attributed to the Toda people? As for your COPAC search, here's the result of the search title going by what you suggested. Tell me how many of these are relevant to culture of India.
Here's a result for searching for "India Culture" on COPAC, how many times do you find Toda?
Here's a googled cached version of an article by the High Commission of India in London on Indian culture. How many times do you ind the Toda people mentioned?
Here's another article on Indian culture from the Embassy in Japan, where are the Toda people?
Here's another article from another website that talks about culture in India, where are the Toda people?
Here's another links from Destination India on Indian culture, where are Toda people?
Find me a single succint article on Indian culture that talks about the Toda culture.
And why is Amazon and Google book searches not acceptable??? A month ago you were championing books over peer reviewed journals and tried to argue those were more reliable sources!!! And as for google booking, I searched Stanley Wolpert's book that you held as a bible barely a month ago. I am forced to conclude your arguments thoroughly lack credability. And why are you not putting your great software to use now to show how mnmany times the Toda people are mentioned in the culture of India, you know, the one that you used to argue that Gandhi was mentioned 132423234545656 times in a book by some professor in some book? If you are willing to argue that the Toda people are more prominent in Indian culture than any of the ones I mentioned earlier, I am going to have to ask you to thoroughly revise your sources on India.Rueben lys20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Culture is manifested in music, literature, painting and sculpture, theater and film.[1] Although some people identify culture in terms of consumption and consumer goods (as in high culture, low culture, folk culture, or popular culture)[2], anthropologists understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. For them, culture thus includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems.
”
Which bit of the study of social structure, interaction, christianity as a religion etc etc of the 1000 people have you found convincingly to compose a prominent part of Indian culture???Rueben lys20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, for all your arguments and rudeness, you still haven't shown that the todas are a relevant enough part of Indian Culture to dominate (at 50% of the images) a general Culture section in the India article. ॐ Priyanathtalk20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Stated by Rueben lys: "Here's a result for searching for "India Culture" on COPAC, how many times do you find Toda?" Dear Rueben lys, What is the third return? "Tribal language and culture," What is the twelfth? "Culture of Indian tribes," Here are some more: 71. Current Anthropological and achaeological perspectives, 74. Encyclopedia of Indian tribes, 75. Tribes and tribal life. You want to bet I could find Toda in them?
Stated by Rueben lys: "I am going to have to ask you to go back to University and start from Undergrad level again, that is if you really are a professor" If you are doubting my being a professor, I am happy to show the list of courses I teach (I only teach graduate students and post-docs now) to an administrator, provided, if that is the case, you will agree to retire from Wikipedia. Are you willing? Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There is still no evidence that todas are remotely notable and relevant for a general discussion of Indian Culture compared to Tagore, Dance, Temples, etc. All the arcane search term combinations on arcane search engines are utterly meaningless for this discussion. ॐ Priyanathtalk21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
To Fowler, first of all, please do find Toda culture and its contributions to Indian culture if you will, secondly I am doubting your credeballity and intenions of making honest open minded research and arguments that I have come to regard as the hallmark of academic teaching, especially if you're teaching post docs, although I do apologise for my earlier outburst after lecturing you on etiquette. But you need to stop taking yourself so seriously, I really couldn't care less if you're a professor or rector or a person with no credential, and no I will not retire from wikipedia if you could prove your that you're the vice chancellor of Harvard University or whatever, I have perfect faith and confidence on my own judgement, credebility, honesty and on the resources I use to back my arguments.( even if it makes you happy to see me gone, or sad for that matter).Rueben lys22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The question wan't wether you're really a professor, rather the question was (and stll is) more on the incongruity of your views, lack of credibillity and honesty of your argument in favour of your views, your acerbic reaction to opposing arguments and lack of respect for those making them, your obvious lack of insight, expertise, and prioritising capabillities in some surprisingly prominent areas of your purpoted field, and yes, you've just added to that an immature sophomoric response to my earlier comment, which lacked reserve and was more akin to that expected of probabaly a juvenile. I am not going to go into your pretentiousness, on the whole quite different from the likes of Abecedare (talk·contribs) and Dwaipayanc (talk·contribs). But as I said, I really couldn't care less if you're Howard Carter himself.Rueben lys10:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The question, as I see it, is the quality and reliability of the product I produce on Wikipedia. Period. For example, when I am finished with my Short History of the Indian Independence Movement, I will be happy to write to any five historians (of your choice) from the list of references and ask them if they think the article is balanced and also if they have other constructive suggestions. How does that sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Silly, because I am neither going to go and check wether you really can or have written to them, nor going to verify what they said becuase, as I said I have enough confidence in my own knowledge and understanding as well as on my own associations and sources who I dont bandy about writing to, who have already told me what they think about the Indian movement. And lastly, I really dont care if its not published or verifiable. But yes, if they do suggest any constructive thoughts to them, by all means, incorporate that into your account.Rueben lys11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Meaning of Culture
In reviewing the above discussion, I think the main stumbling block seems to be the definition of culture itself. My understanding is that many in the "Against Toda" group (for example, user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, and user:Nikkul), tend to interpret "Culture" as "High art" "High culture," whereas many in the "For Toda" group thinks of it in broader terms, as expressed in the lead of the WP article Culture, and, for example, would include Folk culture and Tribal culture as well. Would editors like user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, user:Nikkul and any others please let me know, very briefly, if you include Folk culture and Tribal culture in your definition of Culture (and more specifically, Culture of India). As Nichalp has remarked above, we can't refer to Culture of India for our definition of culture because that page is in shambles. In an ideal world, we should have firmed up that page first, but we didn't, and until that happens, we can't use that page as a benchmark for including or excluding anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the distinction is not as clear cut. Going back to Nichalp's earlier comment of nothing being uniquely Indian, I think festivals, especially religious ones, are a common thread, this takes the form of Ganesh chaturthi in Western India, Durga Puja, etc in Eastern India, Diwali in north and west, Harvest festivals in North west, Pongal etc in South India, Id especially in Northern and around old Nizami central India, and in Bengal. Performing arts, especially the dance forms mentioned earlier, are uniquely Indian styles. Indian music is also distinct style, of which you get classical styles ([[Ravi Shankar, anyone?), classical vocal, classical instrumental, raaga styles, south Indian gharana, and relatively noveau, Fusion (Rahmanesque. In terms of folk culture, you do get folk singers in all the parts of the country, you get folk music etc (which may be influenced to some extent by some tribal influences). I still cant see the Toda hut being representative of any of these. These are not high culture or high art. Architechture and art really should come under Art and Architecture, but performing arts are usually not included in Arts, but form a distinct category. As for tribal culture, I can't see it as having influenced the larger Indian but it might have some (but small) influence in some of the rural cultures.Rueben lys10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry I gave the wrong link. I have since corrected it. No need to re-answer that. I understand your answer and I think it was a good answer. But since you didn't answer the general part of the question: "Would editors like user:Priyanath, user:Rueben lys, user:Nikkul and any others please let me know, very briefly, if you include Folk culture and Tribal culture in your definition of Culture (and more specifically, Culture of India)," would you care to answer that now, without the particular parenthetical reference to India? Am I also correct in interpreting you to imply that you don't necessarily rule out Folk or Tribal Cultures from the Culture of India? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I really dont understand the emphasis of your question, but if it is what I think it is, have a look at the answer below to Dagizza's section.Rueben lys11:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note - The following three RFCxxx templates have been wrapped in nowiki tags as RFCs should not remain open in archived discussion pages. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Archit/gopuram1.JPG){kind=link}
